the House of Delegates
Volume 3, Number 3 April 1998
Keystone Oil & Gas,
Inc., One Williamsburg Place, Ste. 110, Warrendale, PA 15086, Phone (724)
934-4100 Ext. 112 and Fax (724) 934-2219
Newsletter provides a forum to exchange and discuss ideas, issues
and concerns of the membership. This month presents discussion on issues
regarding membership sponsoring requirements including a responsive survey
presented by the Membership Committee. Other important issues presented
include discussions concerning international delegate representation,
an update on the elected editor issues and a progress report by the Ad
Hoc Committee on Ethics. Editor
HOD NEWSLETTER ON THE AAPG
Please note the
HOD Newsletter is now available on the AAPG website at www.aapg.org. After
accessing the website, click on Info Services then click on Inside AAPG.
Next, you scroll to Reports and Newsletters and click on HOD Newsletter
to view the latest issue of the Newsletter. Many thanks to Larry Nation
and his staff at AAPG Headquarters for making this website link possible.
By Dan L. Smith, Chairman
you are probably aware that the AAPG Executive Committee (EC) has chosen
to defer affirming the "legality" of certain proposed amendments to the
AAPG Bylaws. I was the only dissenting member on this action. These proposals
were approved, one vote short of unanimous, by the House of Delegates
(HOD) last year at our Dallas meeting.
deal with international and domestic representation and are the result
of a very long, tedious and tough process that entailed much negotiation
and compromise. This process started in the early 1990s with various proposals,
such as the creation of an International Vice President and the changing
of the word "American" to "International" in our name. Both initiatives
were unsuccessful. After the International Vice President proposal was
set aside, and in an attempt to deal with the continuing situation, the
International Member Participation Ad Hoc Committee was established in
1994. Its recommendations resulted in positive actions but did not deal
fully with the question of international representation. The effort progressed
to the formation of the HOD Ad Hoc At-Large Delegate Committee. That committee
succeeded in devising the current method of giving international members
in countries with no affiliated societies the potential for representation
in the House. However, a survey of the international membership found
that this was not acceptable, and that these members wanted greater representation
in both the House and the Advisory Council. This led to the establishment,
in 1996, of the Ad Hoc International Representation Committee, which was
charged with reviewing "the possibility of changing the current structure
of the AAPG to better reflect democratic principals of the AAPG in allowing
all members an equal voice in the Association".
Representation Committee (IRC) Report, recommending those changes was
approved (one vote short of unanimous) by the 1997 HOD in Dallas, and
their achievement was formally recognized by the EC. The EC awarded
all IRC members with AAPG Certificates of Merit in December, 1997.
The Certificate stated: "The Committee worked diligently to bring together
wide-ranging and different viewpoints and successfully arrived at a proposal
for equitable domestic and international representation in the AAPG".
amendments were delivered by the HOD Constitution and Bylaws Committee
(C & BL Committee) in early February to legal counsel, who ultimately
ruled them "legal". Under intense lobbying pressure against the proposal,
primarily by some AAPG Past Presidents, beginning at AAPG Day this February
in Tulsa, the Executive Committee postponed ruling on the proposed amendments'
legality and instead, created an Ad Hoc Committee to study the definition
of the term "legality" as it is used in the AAPG Bylaws.
There is uncertainty
in the minds of some Executive Committee members as to the potential conflict
between the proposed amendments and Article V of the Constitution, which
establishes six elected officers, an Executive Committee, a House of Delegates
and an Advisory Council. The specific duties, responsibilities and other
matters relevant to these bodies and officers are provided in the Bylaws.
All of the legislative functions of the Association are
vested in the House of Delegates.
It is clear
to everyone, including our paid legal counsel, that the proposed amendments
are legal in terms of how that word has historically been used and defined.
The real issue is that some present and past Executive Committee members
believe that the intent of Article V of the Constitution may imply a "balance
of power" among the above mentioned governing bodies. Thus, the new Ad
Hoc Committee is charged to consider if the word "legal", as it is used
in the Bylaws, also included the "intent" of the Constitution and Bylaws.
by some past presidents, the "intent" may not have included the right
of the House of Delegates to change the composition of the Advisory Council.
Some have interpreted that the Advisory Council is part of the Executive
Committee, since some of the functions of the former are reported to the
Executive Committee. A thorough study of the Constitution and Bylaws reveals
that the Advisory Council and Executive Committee are two separate entities;
therefore, a change to the Advisory Council is not a change to the Executive
Committee. As to the matter of intent:
- How does one ever establish the "intent" of a document that was written approximately thirty years ago?
- How do future generations interpret "intent" when changes in the Bylaws are proposed?
- How do we as an organization adjust to the changes in our industry if we cannot make sensible changes to our Bylaws as needed? Before the late 1980s, the need for international representation did not exist. If a constitution and bylaws were never meant to be changed, there would be no provision for amendments.
The Bylaws already
provide for a certain amount of crossover relationships among the governing
bodies, therefore creating a system of checks and balances. For example,
the Chairman of the House of Delegates is a voting member of the Executive
Committee, and currently six members of the Advisory Council are voting
members of the House. Further, it is possible for any elected officer
to be an elected member of the HOD, and all officers are automatically
I may be one
of very few members of the Association who has been continuously involved
with this long, drawn-out task of finding a solution to acceptable international
representation. My position is that the EC should have affirmed the legality
of the proposed amendments, and they should have been presented for consideration
at the House of Delegates annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Regardless
of a member's opinions about the specific proposals, the time and place
to debate the issues should have been on the floor of the upcoming meeting.
Remember, Bylaws changes require a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority.
It is my hope
that the Ad Hoc Committee will report to the new Executive Committee in
July, as charged, that it finds the proposed amendments legal, and that
they will go forward for consideration by the House of Delegates at the
1999 annual meeting.
is my plan:
- As your Chairman,
I shall submit a statement to all members of the "Blue Ribbon Ad Hoc
Legality Committee" reviewing the entire situation.
- After July
1, 1998, a large number of the Delegates and all Executive Committee
members will be new to the situation since the adoption of the resolution
at the 1997 meeting in Dallas. For a fully informed leadership, general
membership, and the sake of continuity, the new Chairman of HOD and
I shall present a complete history and explanation of the proposals
for publication in the Explorer.
- I shall moderate
a House of Delegates Forum to be held immediately following the adjournment
of the HOD meeting in Salt Lake City for the purpose of reviewing the
proposed amendments and debating the issues. The meeting will be open
to all members of the Association and ground rules for debate will be
Finally, I refer
you to specific documents for your consideration as follows:
of the AAPG Executive Committee Concerning the Constitution and Bylaws
of the AAPG", dated 3/12/98, which was sent to all Association members,
and will appear in the May issue of the Explorer (Newsletter Pull-Out).
- Article in
the April, 1998 issue of the Explorer by Larry Nation, explaining
the Executive Committee action.
- The charge
to the "Ad Hoc Committee on Constitutionality and Bylaw Amendment Process,"
available from Donna Riggs at AAPG Headquarters.
- Petition requesting
a delay in the consideration of the proposed amendments signed by 120+
AAPG members and presented to the Executive Committee on March 1, 1998.
Available from Donna Riggs at AAPG Headquarters.
by Peter R. Rose, Chairman, and John R. Hogg, Co-Chairman of the C &
BL Committee titled "Development and Fate of Proposed 1998 Changes to
AAPG Bylaws," dated April 3, 1998. This was mailed to most of the members
on the HOD Newsletter mailing list, and will appear in the May
issue of the Explorer (Newsletter Pull-out).
authored by all members of the C & BL Committee titled "Article from
the Members of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee" which appears
in this Newsletter and also in the May issue of the Explorer
- Letter from
John Hogg, dated March 23, 1998, sent to all international Delegates,
available from Donna Riggs at Headquarters.
- Final Report
of the International Representation Committee, Ad Hoc AAPG House of
Delegates, Dallas, 1997" available from Donna Riggs at Headquarters.
- Article by
Toby Carlton regarding the proposed amendments published in the May
issue of the Explorer (Newsletter Pull-out).
- Letter by
Harrison Townes to the Oklahoma City Delegates published in the May
issue of the Explorer (Newsletter Pull-out).
HOUSE OF DELEGATES ANNUAL
MEETING AGENDA AND GENERAL BUSINESS
By Dan Smith, Chairman
House of Delegates (HOD) Annual Meeting Agenda and Committee Reports were
mailed to Delegates, Alternates, Executive Committee (EC) Members and
others on approximately April 9, 1998. Please review these items thoroughly
prior to the May 17, 1998 meeting:
and reports will include the following:
- Proposed amendment
to modify Article I, Section 3 of the Bylaws, broadening the definition
of Active Members, from the practice of teaching of Geology to
- Proposed resolution
to modify Article I, Section 6 to provide for the eventual elimination
of the Junior Membership category. Please see the relevant discussion
in this Newsletter.
- Proposed resolution
to modify Article I, Section 9 which deals with requirements for Active
Membership, to allow for a combination of AAPG Active Member and Non-Member
references (to be handled under new business). This would replace the
current policy of requiring three Active Member Sponsors. Please see
the relevant discussion in this Newsletter and return the survey card
immediately. Consideration of this proposal will depend on the results
of the survey.
- Proposal to
establish four Awards of the House of Delegates.
to approve three associations to become Affiliated Societies of AAPG.
- Proposal to
amend Article XI, Section 8 of the Bylaws, which deals with Grievance
Proceedings, to make it easier to discipline a member who pleads guilty
to a misdemeanor or felony charge. Also other items regarding ethics
will be proposed with recommendations for Executive Committee endorsement.
Please see the relevant discussion in this Newsletter.
- Various proposals
from the Future of Earth Scientists Committee will be presented for
your approval and future endorsement by the Executive Committee.
- Status report
from the Ad Hoc Committee on Elected Editor which may include proposals
for HOD consideration. Please see the relevant discussion in this Newsletter.
ARTICLE FROM THE AAPG HOD
CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS COMMITTEE
by Dwight "Clint" Moore, John
R. Hogg, Joan R. Barminski and Peter R. Rose
The Constitution and Bylaws Committee
AAPG House of Delegates
the AAPG Executive Committee (EC) chose not to "affirm the legality" of
several Bylaw amendments proposed by the AAPG House of Delegates (HOD).
HOD Chairman Dan Smith opposed this EC action. Instead, the EC chose to
create an Ad Hoc Committee to study the meaning of the word "legality"
as it is used in the Bylaws, and the constitutionality of the proposed
amendments, thereby deferring any decision pending the outcome of this
study. As members of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee (C&BC) of the
HOD, and writers of Bylaws and Rules for other organizations, we must
respectfully state that this was an unfortunate decision. We believe that
any findings of this special committee will not alter the possible success
of a "serious challenge" from any opposing member, which was an expressed
EC objective in pursuing this course of action. It is our contention that
they have unnecessarily created a constitutional confrontation, which
may have further unfortunate long term implications for the governance,
and thereby the success, of this Association.
In our view,
this confrontation between the EC and the HOD came about because some
past and present EC members objected to changes contained in proposed
Bylaws amendments that restructure the Advisory Council (AC) into a completely
elected body, as well as the removal and addition of several AC positions
designed to improve its member representation. No formal or organized
expression of opposition or alternatives was ever received by the HOD's
Constitution and Bylaws Committee prior to February. These amendments
are the Bylaws translation of recommendations to the HOD from its Ad Hoc
International Representation Committee last April 1997, and passed nearly
unanimous by the HOD at that time. Based on our conversations with several
past EC members, it would appear to us that several past EC members intend
to try and stop these Bylaw amendments from ever coming to a vote on the
HOD floor. They would choose to subordinate the clear Bylaws language
reading of most members, and the nearly 30 years of actual EC practice
at the direction of counsel, in favor of the alleged "intent" and "spirit"
of the C&B writers over 30 years ago. Constitutionality is truly not the
issue here. The use of alleged "intent" or "spirit" of the documents is
not relevant to the discussion when compared to standard English and nearly
30 years practice of affirmed "legality". What truly is "intent" and "spirit"
anyway? When was it established? Who really did it? For sure, "intent"
and "spirit" might make for enjoyable reading, as may be the case with
the late C&B co-author, Frank Conselman's, "Swan Song" President's column
in the May 1970 Bulletin, but is it identifiable and truly relevant?
Frank felt the HOD was indeed "trustworthy", but is this "intent" and
our Bylaws writers' viewpoint, whether the original writers "intended"
or not, the Bylaws they wrote are very clear. Under Article IV, Section
1 entitled "Jurisdiction", it states: "All of the legislative function
of this Association, within the scope of the Constitution and Bylaws,
shall be vested in a House of Delegates". Under Article XIV, Section 4
entitled "Consideration of Amendments", it states: "Proposed amendments
shall be considered at the Annual Meeting of the HOD and shall be passed
upon receipt of a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the Delegates present
and voting." Bylaws Article XIV also clearly states that any resolutions
to change the Bylaws can come from a) the Executive Committee, b) the
House itself, or c) written proposal from fifty (50) members, followed
by "affirmation of legality" by the EC, BUT ultimate "consideration" rests
singularly with the HOD. Clearly, the HOD has the sole authority, an actual
override authority, to change any part of the Bylaws, whether the EC approves
or disapproves of their content. Two-thirds (2/3) majorities are commonly
used as votes for final legislative enactment of amendments of Constitutions,
Bylaws and Rules, in many organizations, and are infrequently subject
to Executive veto or override. Certainly, this clarifies the HOD's singular
responsibility to restructure the Association in different forms under
the Bylaws, whether or not the other governance bodies agree. Our C&B
Committee maintains that the Bylaws intentionally contain this difficult
2/3 majority vote of the HOD to change them, in order to require that
only the broad grassroots votes of the large 200+ member HOD be able to
enact any changes to the governance structure contained therein. Therefore,
the HOD should be able to override any opposition from the EC or AC, if
it achieves this difficult 2/3 majority. Remember historically, several
proposals have failed for votes just short of the 2/3 majority.
After all, shouldn't
the future structure of the organization contained in the Bylaws be the
singular responsibility of the 200+ member elected HOD, or do we give
the seven member EC (nominated by a partially appointed AC) a "supreme
veto power"? Would it be wise to give the EC that "supreme veto power"
over a legislative body with over thirty (30) times the number of members
as the EC? If not, then where are the checks and balances on the EC if
it can veto any changes to any governance structure with a simple majority
vote of only four out of its seven members?
As members of
the HOD's Constitution and Bylaws Committee, we must respectfully object
to the EC's suspension and delay of the amendment process. In the end,
let's all keep in mind that the members deserve great leadership, and
the improved products and services that the leadership is expected to
deliver today, and in the future. We need to all remember that we should
constantly be working to make AAPG more valuable to the members' daily
practice of this fine profession.
LETTER TO AAPG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
AAPG ADVISORY COUNCIL AND CHAIRMAN, AAPG HOUSE OF DELEGATES
by The Division of Professional
Affairs Executive Committee
there has been considerable debate over several proposed amendments to
the Association's Constitution and Bylaws. This debate has mainly focused
on an amendment proposed by a House of Delegates Ad Hoc Committee on International
Representation; an amendment, which included a provision that would alter
the make-up of the membership of the Advisory Council. Some public discussions
of this issue have been conducted in an emotional atmosphere and with
considerable acrimony, including expressions of misconceptions of motives,
some name-calling and actions that departed from due process.
Committee of the Division of Professional Affairs urges that all parties
to this debate conduct these discussions in a professional manner, observe
due process, consideration of opposing viewpoints and in an atmosphere
consistent with the high professional standards set by our Association.
inevitably going to be proposed, and made, for AAPG, as circumstances
change and as members who take leadership positions express new and different
ideas. Proposals of, and debate over, constructive change are manifestations
of a healthy and vibrant Association.
tradition of adapting to change, especially major changes, has been one
of careful debate and consideration of all sides of the issue. It is in
the best interest of the Association that regardless of the position taken
by any individual or group of individuals, the public discussions over
this issue follow this established pattern. Also, it is for the good of
the Association that we allow for spirited and open debate, but with good
will towards all and in the context of the professional conduct to which
we all aspire.
8 YEARS AGO
JUNIORS CATEGORY ALMOST ELIMINATED!
by Patrick J. F. Gratton
some issues stay with us a long time!
Meeting in San
Francisco in 1990 under the chairmanship of Brenda K. Cunningham, the
House debated the Junior membership question in several dimensions. (Brenda
had urged Delegates attending Section meetings to work to upgrade "Junior
7s" to Active resulting in 425 transfers in approximately ten months.)
Probably the most dramatic action was the House's rejection of the proposed
Bylaws changes which would have eliminated the Junior category. Under
the failed proposal existing Junior members would become Student or Associate
members until they qualified as Active via the usual procedure.
But, the vote
was close! In favor were 135 with 71 opposed and three abstaining. Since
a supermajority of 2/3 of those voting (209), or 140, was needed for passage,
the measure failed by only five votes!
The recent HOD
Newsletter responsive survey regarding Junior members showed majorities
in favor of similar action but far short of 66.67%. Yet, 91% of responding
Delegates are opposed to lifetime Junior memberships. Historical note:
In June 1990 there were 9,208 Juniors (27% of all members) while almost
eight years later there are about 7,000 Juniors representing 23% of all
the House of Delegates History 1970-1995,
George R. Gibson and Herbert G. Davis, compilers/editors
AAPG MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
AAPG Membership Committee Proposal
Regarding Member Sponsors
by Bob Shoup and Bob Countryman, AAPG Membership Committee
which appeared in the October HOD Newsletter posed the following question:
"Do you believe that AAPG should change the current membership requirements
of three active member sponsors?"
Although a slight
majority of the respondents to that question replied no (56%), the AAPG
Membership Committee feels that it is appropriate to go forward with a
proposal to change that requirement. The purpose of this article is to
present the reasons why the committee wants to make the proposal, lay
out how the proposal is envisioned to work and to provide the delegates
another chance to provide direction. If a majority of delegates would
oppose this proposed change, we will not advance it for consideration
at Salt Lake City. Conversely, if a majority of delegates voice support
for the proposal, then we will seek to have the proposal passed on to
the HOD By-law Committee for review and consideration for next year's
convention. Your opinion is very important.
as recommended by the Membership Committee would allow for a combination
of AAPG Active Member and non-Active Member references. Non-Active Member
references must be practicing geoscientists who would meet AAPG Active
member requirements and who know, but do not work for the candidate.
for the proposal:
reason for recommending the proposal is that it is difficult for applicants
in many countries outside of the United States to find three Active Members
to serve as sponsors. It has often been suggested that AAPG could waive,
or at least bend, the sponsorship requirement for applicants from such
countries. The Membership Committee feels that this approach is unacceptable
as it creates a new class of membership -- non-sponsored Active Members.
The proposal for a combination of Active Member and non-member references
will ensure that membership standards will remain the same for all applicants,
domestic and international.
A second reason
for recommending the proposal is that it makes the Active Member application
process more "user-friendly" for all applicants. Without a Membership
Directory, it is easy for an applicant to temporarily put aside the
application form with the excuse that they don't know which of their
colleagues are AAPG Active Members. Once put aside, it tends to stay
put aside. However, it will be relatively easy for an applicant to hand
the form to the first five colleagues they run across.
A third reason
for recommending the proposal is that it will provide a better mechanism
for checking the qualifications of an applicant. Currently, the delegate
check process is not standard from section to section, and for many
international regions, there is no delegate check.
an unintended side benefit, the proposed process will serve as a membership
recruiting tool by providing up to five names of qualified Active Member
candidates per each application received.
How the proposal
will be implemented:
envisioned, the sponsor form would be modified such that references who
are not AAPG members would be required to provide some biographical information
including their school, major, degree, the year the degree was granted
and a brief work history and job description. Once AAPG has determined
that the reference meets the requirements for an AAPG Active member, the
forms will be passed on to the delegates. The delegates will be expected
to call the references to confirm the references biographical information
(non-AAPG members only), and that they are, in fact, recommending the
applicant for Active Membership.
Constitution and Bylaw Change, Article I, Section 9: (Bold denotes an
addition, an underline denotes a deletion)
candidate for admission as an Active Member shall submit a formal application
on an application form authorized by the Executive Committee, signed by
the applicant, and endorsed by not less than three (3) members in good
standing stating three to five references according to the following
Active Member References
member references must be members in good standing. Non-Active members
must, in their own right, meet the qualifications for Active member. All
references shall know of the applicant, not work for or report to the
applicant, and shall provide attestation to the applicant's training
and experience and such other facts as the Executive Committee shall from
time to time prescribe . . . the committee shall cause to be published
in the Bulletin, Explorer or by other suitable means,
the applicant's name and the name of the of the sponsor's references.
If. . .
AAPG Membership Committee needs to know if you would support this proposal.
They feel it will make it easier for all applicants, while at the same
time strengthening our membership application process. Lastly, it is a
process which maintains fairness to all applicants, domestic and international.
your response to this proposal on the enclosed pre-addressed survey
card and mail it as soon as possible.
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP
By Martha Lou Broussard, Chairman
1, 1998, out of a total AAPG membership of 31,094, there were 7,009 Junior
Members. Of these, 4,626 had been Junior Members four or more years and
therefore, had the necessary work experience to apply for Active Membership.
This is 15% of our total membership. There are also 2,383 Junior Members
who have not, as yet, acquired the necessary work experience.
The Junior Membership
category was created for graduate students and for applicants who had
the required academic degree(s) but not the work experience. In 1992,
graduate students were changed to Student Membership category and only
persons with insufficient work experience were to remain as Junior Members.
When this requirement was satisfied, it was expected that they would apply
for Active Membership, if appropriate. However, some members have remained
in the Junior Member category for as long as 20 or more years without
Of the 213 of
you who returned the HOD survey last Fall, 91% indicated that the current
arrangement that allows for lifelong Junior Members should be changed.
At the forthcoming HOD meeting the Ad Hoc Committee on Membership will
propose a resolution that would eliminate, after five years, the
Category of Junior Membership. At that time, all Junior Members who have
not upgraded to Active Membership will automatically become Associate
Members. In addition, from the time that the Bylaw Amendment is approved,
all applicants with suitable academic credentials but insufficient work
experience would be Associate Members until they fulfilled the requirements
for Active Membership and could upgrade.
Junior Members begin their fourth year as Junior Members, they receive
a letter informing them that they are now eligible to upgrade along with
the necessary forms. At the end of their fourth year, their dues are changed
from half of the Active Members dues to full dues. Therefore, there is
no advantage to remain a Junior Member after four years. We will also
propose that those persons who apply for Associate Membership and who
have not satisfied their working experience would pay half dues for a
period of no longer than four years. Thus, the new graduates would continue
to have smaller dues during the time that they are getting established
in the profession.
If you should
have any questions or suggestions about this proposal, please contact
me at  665-4428 or fax at  285-5214.
PROGRESS REPORT: ACTIVITIES
OF THE JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
By George E. Bole, Chairman
1997, the Joint Ad Hoc committee on Ethics (JACE) was authorized by Dan
Smith, Chairman, House of Delegates (HOD), and Robert T. Sellars, Jr.,
President, Division of Professional Affairs (DPA). Reasons for establishing
JACE are based, among other things, on concerns about questionable ethical
deportment among professional geoscientists, and what measures can be
initiated to remedy these concerns. For example, there appears to be an
increase in the number of grievances that have been forwarded to AAPG
Headquarters and DPA, for consideration and review, in the last decade.
Prior to that time, former Executive Director Fred Dix, has cited numerous
instances of ethics charges brought forth during his 23 year tenure. One
of the more noteworthy grievances dealt with misrepresentation of well
production rates noted during the showing of a prospect. The Advisory
Council and Executive Committee ultimately sanctioned the member. Other
ethical violations dealt with: defamation of character; child pornography;
Medicare fraud; theft of data; falsification of reports; felony; and errors
and omissions (failure to perform as a geoscientist). Some charges were
sanctioned, because of documented convictions or requests for additional
information; others were not because the accusers chose to remain anonymous.
It thus became JACE's task to review this history of activity and nine
other purposes and charges related to studying, evaluating, ensuring,
recommending and reviewing concerns centered around:
deportment of geoscientists
quality ethical behavior
virtues and values
to AAPG's Constitution and Bylaws
of AAPG's Code of Ethics
outside legal counsel for assistance
for resolving ethical issues
members on ethical conduct
used by sibling organizations
Since last Fall,
JACE members have shared information and ideas related to the purposes
and charges of the Committee. At least five conclusions can be drawn from
- Ethical behavior
is becoming more and more a concern among members of the AAPG.
- There is a
confirmed desire to improve the wording of the Constitution and Bylaws
to more effectively encourage proper ethical conduct.
- Policies and
procedures from sibling organizations and state boards of registration
are available for review and possible incorporation into AAPG's procedures
for sanctioning ethical misconduct.
fellow geoscientists and including classes in ethical practices and
behavior may be the preferred remedy to these concerns, over the long
publishing "sanitized" accounts, or examples of both good and bad ethical
practices will prove to be informative and beneficial to the membership.
underway or completed and related to JACE's charges and purposes include
the formation of an Ad Hoc Grievance Committee (under consideration by
the Executive Committee), and suggested changes to the Constitution and
Bylaws—if appropriate—in response to favorable feedback received from
HOD members last Fall via a survey. That survey showed that the majority
of those responding favor changing, or adding to, the Bylaws ". . .so
that it will be easier to sanction members behaving unethically. . ."
or ". . .so that members whose conduct is inconsistent with the AAPG Code
of Ethics can be effectively sanctioned. . .".
Based on the
survey feedback, a resolution and two point-out items will be presented
at the HOD meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah on May 17th:
- Seek approval
for a resolution to make some simple changes to the Constitution and
Bylaws under Section 8, Article XI, Alternative Procedures for Grievance
- Ask Chairman
Dan Smith to review a set of well defined geoscience virtues and values
with the Executive Committee and to secure their endorsement; and
- Have JACE
continue to gather information related to the Committee's charges and
purposes and seek advice from, or make recommendations to, the HOD and
the Executive Committee when appropriate.
and the other two point-out items will be more fully described in a detailed
status report to be distributed to all HOD members ca. April 10.
Members of JACE
include David M. Abbott, Jr., Thomas S. Ahlbrandt, Ronald A. Baugh, Rick
L. Ericksen, Jack S. Moody, Debra Rutan, Carol L. Ruthven and Daniel M.
Titerle. I thank the members of this fine Committee, as well as Dan Smith
and Bob Sellars, for their support, feedback and advice. I look forward
to working with them in the future.
AD HOC ELECTED EDITOR COMMITTEE:
By Tom Mairs, Chairman
membership was finalized during February 1998. At the request of the Executive
Committee, we have added Jack Gallagher, our new Science Director, to
our somewhat illustrious roster which now includes in total: John R. Hogg
(Canadian Society of Petroleum Geology), Terry L. Hollrah (Oklahoma City
Geological Society), Neil F. Hurley, Editor (Rocky Mountain Association
of Geologists), Dwight "Clint" Moore (Houston Geological Society), Peter
R. Rose (Austin Geological Society), Kevin T. Biddle, Past Editor (Houston
Geological Society), Richard Steinmetz, Past Editor and Past Science Director
(AAPG Retiree), and Jack Gallagher, Science Director (AAPG). Our charge
is to interact with other AAPG entities to study the Elected Editor issues
and coordinate with the HOD recommendations concerning any amendments,
proposed in accordance with the Bylaws and Constitution of the Association,
and be prepared to explain the purpose, function and significance of such
Many of our
Committee members (6), attended an open forum discussion with the Executive
Committee and other interested AAPG members during a rather stimulating
breakout session at "AAPG Day" in early February. Since then, communication
and debate have been in the form of E-Mail and facsimiles which have been
"electronically heated", both figuratively and literally.
As I reported
in the February Newsletter, our Committee consists of members well
versed in the current Editorial system and the issues at hand, and have
now learned, through discovery, that we all possess "inflated superegos",
which have spawned extremely interesting and stimulating conversation
via our electrobabble.
We have not
yet wholly reached an accord, but I think that we are making measurable
progress and are agreeing upon the following issues:
- The AAPG Editorship
is probably the most demanding and possibly the most important volunteer
position within AAPG, which dictates that we carefully select the candidates
to serve as Editor, and in fact, it may be advisable to appoint rather
- Future demand
on the Editorship will probably necessitate some restructuring of the
current management system.
- The importance
of the Editorship demands careful and full consideration prior to amending
and affecting the Editorial process. We do not want to change for the
sake of changing, but we do want to improve for the sake of progress
and the benefit to our membership.
is now involved in rapid communication and productive dialog and progressing
toward a decision of recommendation. Due to the importance of the many
issues involved, the timing for decision is not the ultimate consideration;
however, we will make a best-efforts attempt to present recommendations
to the HOD Meeting at Salt Lake City on May 17, 1998.
Since John Hogg,
Neil Hurley and myself commented in the February Newsletter, I
am including a few comments by other Committee members below. Once again,
should you have constructive ideas or comments, please contact me at 
265-9533 or fax  692-9621.
By Jack Gallagher, Science
information and consideration, an e-mail survey of the Executive Directors
for ten Not-For-Profit Scientific Societies with "Elected Editors" reveals
the following information:
- None of the
ten elects their elected editor(s) by presenting two or more nominees
to their members for election!
- Three (SPE,
SEG, SEPM) present one nominee to membership for election of elected
- Five (GSA,
Amer. Soc. Plant Physiologists, Soc. Applied Spectroscopy, Seis. Soc.
Amer. and AGU) nominate and review candidates within a Search or Publications
Committee. Final appointment is made by an Executive Board or Committee.
- The President
appoints the elected editor(s) for two of the ten (Materials Research
Society and SIAM).
- The elected
editor is a voting board member of SEG and SEPM.
- Two elected
editors are ex-officio and non-voting members of the board.
- The others
are not members of the Executive Committee or board members, but they
do have input by Publications Committee or Editorial Board that reports
to their respective Executive Committee.
We are all familiar
with the Bylaw Article II, Section 10 statement that ". . . the Advisory
Council shall annually recommend . . .one (1) or more candidates for the
office of Editor. . ." Existing AAPG practice fits this statement and
SPE, SEG and SEPM follow a similar practice. The membership appeared to
be well represented by the nominating bodies.
T. Biddle, Former AAPG Editor
for your note. But I must take exception to one thing that you wrote.
You stated that the style and content of the Bulletin have not been a
major concern of the Elected Editor. You could not be more wrong. These
are THE major concerns of the Editor. I personally spent a great deal
of time worrying about this as did my predecessor, Susan Longacre. Both
of us sent personal letters to authors from the national and regional
meetings (Neil's idea isn't new). What we found is that while we were
successful in generating some papers, we never did get the response we
wanted. I caution against two things: first attempting to expand the efforts
of this committee beyond its current charge, and second, the Editor's
job is clearly defined. We should guard against ad hoc redefinition.
R. Rose, Chairman, Constitution and Bylaws Committee
Ok—enough bitching (that's what examples are called when they hit too
close to home). What about solutions? Can we find a consensus? Or was
Yeats correct (see "The Second Coming")?
- An Elected Editor whose clear responsibilities are publications policy, applied to all AAPG publications, who must report semi-annually to the membership, and be held accountable. Two year term. Someone to help us move into the next millennium proactively, not reactively. Someone to provide a shield for —
- The Bulletin Editor—a solid scientist, but a practical, applied one, appointed by the Executive Committee (including the Elected Editor), for two, three or four year term. A nonvoting, but highly respected position.
- See, you can have your cake and eat it too? Try it, you'll like! Responses anyone? Kind regards to all (really!).
"Clint" Moore, Committee Member We should empower a new, truly "Elected
(Chief) Editor" who would have official oversight of not only the new
"Bulletin-only Editor" (EC appointed member), but also a Special Publications
Editor (EC appointed member), the Explorer Editor (staff—currently Vern
Stefanic), and a new Newsletter Editor (staff). Since the Special Publications
are currently the responsibility of the Publications Committee (and staff),
and overseen by a chairman who currently reports to the Bulletin Editor,
this function would no longer report to the new "Bulletin-only Editor",
but rather to the new, true "Elected (Chief) Editor". The Publications
Committee could be restructured, and the Chairman could then be called
something like Special Publications Editor and give his committee the
title of Associate Editors of Special Publications. Explorer Editor would
be both answerable to the Elected Editor and the Communications Director,
with issues of dispute between both to be resolved only by the AAPG President.
Staff titles could be restated to coincide with these new members titles.
duties can be better dispersed amongst additional Editor/members and staff,
thereby resulting in a more focused and efficient dedication of time on
their specific publications of responsibility. Clearly, a more narrow
focus of responsibility will result in better publications of all variety,
due to more available time for greater care and review. The Elected Editor
will interact and oversee these appointed and staff editors and thus better
provide liaison to the Executive Committee. Most important, they will
better represent the editorial will of the membership in all AAPG publications,
since only he/she was elected from at least two candidates, and the publications
of the association will be a reflection of his leadership, and a product
of his judgment embraced by the membership in true and honest elections.
Let's change the shameful process we call an "election" now. The members
should expect us to do nothing less.
Steinmetz, Former Editor and Science Director
We also need
to think of the future of AAPG, our members' needs and the future of the
publishing business. Along this line, I offer the following relevant ideas
derived from the 21st Century Committee's preliminary report.
of Technology: Trends and Challenges
advances in computer technology will change the way we communicate and
disseminate information. B. An ever-increasing variety and volume of
digital geoscience data will be transmitted, displayed and used in a
wide variety of formats.
Statement: Ensure AAPG's internal operations and products offered to
members worldwide by utilizing state-of-the-art information technology.
1) Use of
computer and telecommunications technologies in the geosciences will
continue to increase.
Expand the AAPG website and work towards doing all publishing and communicating
electronically on digital media.
2) The worldwide web and AAPG home page have become a vital part of
the way the AAPG addresses member needs.
By Jeff Greenawalt, Secretary-Editor
Newsletter will be mailed in July, 1998. If you would like to serve on
the Newsletter Committee or have an HOD item of interest for publication,
please contact me. My address, phone and fax numbers are listed on the
front of the Newsletter. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Remember
my area code is now 724 as of May 1, 1998. Please consider making a contribution
to the AAPG Foundation. Your tax deductible contribution supports and
expands the science of geology and our profession. Consider honoring the
teacher who influenced you to become a geologist. A contribution of any
size will be greatly appreciated.
YES, I want
to contribute to the AAPG Foundation and support its efforts
to further the science and knowledge of geology.
City: __________ State: _________Zip:
Gifts Made by Credit Card
[ ] Visa [ ] Mastercard [ ] American
Credit Card #: _______________________________
Expires: _______Signature: ____________________
Please complete the following information
concerning how you would like
to make your contribution. Your check should be made payable to the
I have enclosed $ ______________________
I pledge an additional $___________________
Please send a reminder billing by
the following date: ___________
[ ] Secondary Education Fund [ ]
[ ] Distinguished Lecture Fund [ ] Grants-in Aid Fund
[ ] Other (specify) ___________________________
In Memory of: _______________________________
In Honor of: _________________________________