AAPG Site Search | Home > Leadership > House of Delegates > The Delegates' Voice APRIL 1998

Leadership Short Cuts Executive Committee Advisory Council House of Delegates Committees Government Affairs Code of Ethics Constitution & Bylaws Officer Candidates Officer Nominations

AAPG
DELEGATES NEWSLETTER

Newsletter of the House of Delegates

Editor: Jeff Greenawalt

The Delegates 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 WEBSITE

CHAIR NOTES

By now, 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.

These amendments 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".

The International 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".

These proposed 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.

As expressed 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:

1. How does one ever establish the "intent" of a document that was written approximately thirty years ago?
2. How do future generations interpret "intent" when changes in the Bylaws are proposed?
3. 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 At-Large Delegates.

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.

Meanwhile, here is my plan:

1. As your Chairman, I shall submit a statement to all members of the "Blue Ribbon Ad Hoc Legality Committee" reviewing the entire situation.

2. 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.

3. 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 set.

Finally, I refer you to specific documents for your consideration as follows:

• "Comments 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.

• Statement 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).

• Statement 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 (Newsletter Pull-out).

• 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

The formal 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:

Various proposals 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 Geoscience.

• 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.

• Proposals 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

Recently, 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 "spirit"?

Certainly from 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

Recently, 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.

The Executive 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.

Changes are 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.

Our Association's 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!

Well, 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 members.

AAPG MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

The survey 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.

The proposal, 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.

In consideration for the proposal:

One 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.

Finally, as 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:

As 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.

Proposed Wording, Constitution and Bylaw Change, Article I, Section 9: (Bold denotes an addition, an underline denotes a deletion)

Every 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 schedule:

Active 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. . .

Survey

The 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.

Please indicate your response to this proposal on the enclosed pre-addressed survey card and mail it as soon as possible.

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP

On February 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 upgrading.

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.

Currently, when 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 [713] 665-4428 or fax at [713] 285-5214.

PROGRESS REPORT: ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

In September 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:

ethical deportment of geoscientists mentoring quality ethical behavior geoscience virtues and values changes to AAPG's Constitution and Bylaws inclusiveness of AAPG's Code of Ethics

use of outside legal counsel for assistance guidelines for resolving ethical issues educating members on ethical conduct procedures used by sibling organizations

Conclusions

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 these exchanges:

1. Ethical behavior is becoming more and more a concern among members of the AAPG.
2. There is a confirmed desire to improve the wording of the Constitution and Bylaws to more effectively encourage proper ethical conduct.
3. 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.
4. Mentoring fellow geoscientists and including classes in ethical practices and behavior may be the preferred remedy to these concerns, over the long haul.
5. Periodically publishing "sanitized" accounts, or examples of both good and bad ethical practices will prove to be informative and beneficial to the membership.

Discussion and Recommendations

Other activities 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:

1. Seek approval for a resolution to make some simple changes to the Constitution and Bylaws under Section 8, Article XI, Alternative Procedures for Grievance Proceedings;
2. 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
3. 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.

This recommendation 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: STATUS REPORT

The committee 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 amendments.

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:

1. 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 than elect.

2. Future demand on the Editorship will probably necessitate some restructuring of the current management system.

3. 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.

Our Committee 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 [214] 265-9533 or fax [214] 692-9621.

COMMITTEE COMMENTS

For our 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 editor(s).

• 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.

By Kevin T. Biddle, Former AAPG Editor

Jack, thanks 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.

By Peter R. Rose, Chairman, Constitution and Bylaws Committee

SOLUTIONS: 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")?

1. 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 —
2. 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.
3. See, you can have your cake and eat it too? Try it, you'll like! Responses anyone? Kind regards to all (really!).

By Dwight "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.

The Editor's 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.

By Richard 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.

1. Influence of Technology: Trends and Challenges
A. Continued 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.
2. Information Technology
A. Mission Statement: Ensure AAPG's internal operations and products offered to members worldwide by utilizing state-of-the-art information technology.
B. Conclusions
1) Use of computer and telecommunications technologies in the geosciences will continue to increase.
2) The worldwide web and AAPG home page have become a vital part of the way the AAPG addresses member needs.
C. Recommendation: Expand the AAPG website and work towards doing all publishing and communicating electronically on digital media.

NEXT NEWSLETTER

The next 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.

Name_____________________________________ (please print)

Address:____________________________________

___________________________________________

City: __________ State: _________Zip: _______

Gifts Made by Credit Card

[ ] Visa [ ] Mastercard [ ] American Express

Credit Card #: _______________________________

Expires: _______Signature: ____________________

Contributions Options

Please complete the following information concerning how you would like
to make your contribution. Your check should be made payable to the
AAPG Foundation.

I have enclosed $ ______________________

I pledge an additional $___________________

Please send a reminder billing by the following date: ___________

[ ] Secondary Education Fund [ ] General Fund
[ ] Distinguished Lecture Fund [ ] Grants-in Aid Fund
[ ] Other (specify) ___________________________

In Memory of: _______________________________

In Honor of: _________________________________