AAPG Site Search | Home > Leadership > House of Delegates > The Delegates' Voice JAN 1999
THE DELEGATES’ VOICENewsletter
of the House of Delegates
|
||||||||||||||
| Volume 3, Number 2 |
January,
1999
|
|||||||||||||
Inside this Issue: |
Letters to the EditorThis issue we inaugurate an addition to our newsletter, Letters to the Editor. There are three letters concerning the pending bylaws amendments originally recommended by the International Representation Committee. You will find them on the back page. Please read the letters carefully and discuss their pros and cons with other AAPG members you see.
Editor:
Jean R. Lemmon |
|||||||||||||
Chair NotesBy: Tom Mairs, ChairmanMy faith in the human spirit, which is occasionally challenged, has been strongly rekindled by your response to my call to serve on a committee. Although you were somewhat reluctant to voluntarily respond (must be your military training), you very willingly agreed to serve when called upon. Of the 70 or more members contacted, I had only one (1) turn down and it was due to completely understandable circumstances. All two (2) of the voluntary respondents to my newsletter invitation have been, or will be, placed on a committee. The majority of the House of Delegates business will be conducted in the eight (8) standing committees and four (4) ad hoc committees. A complete list of Committees and members is enclosed with this newsletter. A new innovation this year is to include the HOD officer candidates on the Credentials Committee. This is a communication effort to allow the candidates to become better acquainted. Another committee which has just been formed in the waning days of 1998, is the HOD Ad hoc IRC Amendment Resolution Committee, chaired by Dan Smith. This committee will have met in Dallas on January 9th in an attempt to resolve, through debate and compromise, some of the amendment issues which are of concern to the affected entities of AAPG. The committee will consist of members of the various affected entities and the general membership. We had an excellent response to the HOD survey on the International Representation Committee (IRC) proposed bylaws amendment with 64% of the polled delegates returning the questionnaire. See the summary of the survey in this newsletter. As announced in the October newsletter, a Summit on Committees was held October 23-25, 1998, in Houston. The summit was well attended, and in my opinion, was a highly successful learning experience and communication tool. See the reports in this newsletter. Since the last chair report, I have attended the Eastern Section’s Annual Meeting in Columbus, Ohio, October 7-10, and the Gulf Coast Section’s Annual Meeting in Corpus Christi, October 23-25. Both meetings were very positive, well planned, and well attended – Columbus hosted approximately 350 total attendees and Corpus Christi hosted 932 professional and 1,574 total attendees, the latter of which was amazing, considering the very adverse weather conditions...the "Great Flood." General Chairs Larry Wickstrom, Eastern Section, and Gloria Sprague, Gulf Coast Section, and their committees, are to be commended for their outstanding efforts. I was very pleased with the attendance at both HOD breakfast meetings; 32 in Columbus and 58 in Corpus Christi. It was certainly a pleasure for me to meet with so many delegates, and I want to thank you all for your hospitality and input. Also during October, I represented the HOD at the October 21, 1998, Executive Committee Meeting in Corpus Christi. The Executive Committee unanimously approved the legality of two (2) HOD proposed amendments to the AAPG bylaws, both of which were approved by the delegation at the May 17, 1998, Annual Meeting, held in Salt Lake City. They also unanimously approved the legality of an Executive Committee proposed amendment to the AAPG bylaws. These three (3) proposed amendments are summarized below.
NOTE: The last proposed amendment is a housekeeping item to make Section 9 of Article V comply with Section 8 of Article V, which was amended at the April 25, 1993, Annual Meeting held in New Orleans. It was to have been presented at the HOD meeting in Salt Lake City, but determination of legality was deferred by the Executive Committee at their March 1, 1998, meeting held in Houston.
After a brief hiatus, this is definitely a year for abundant legislative business, which will be presented on the House floor at the Annual Meeting on April 11, 1999, in San Antonio. Specifically, there now are five (5) proposed amendments to the AAPG bylaws, three (3) amendments to the HOD Rules and Procedures and three (3) applications by organizations either to affiliate or associate. Summarized below are the legislative items to be considered. The 18th Annual Leadership Conference (aka AAPG Day) is scheduled for February 6-8, 1999. I am looking forward to seeing you there. My appeal for non-represented Affiliated Societies to name delegates did not go unnoticed. I want to thank the officers of three (3) societies who haven’t had representation in a while for selecting delegates to the House. Now you can communicate and be heard. Once again, the officers of the House of Delegates cordially invite you to use The Delegates’ Voice to express your constructive convictions, complaints, comments, or curses for publication. Jean Lemmon has the ultimate responsibility for editing and including your article, and will attempt to work it in. Finally, I trust that all of you geo-volunteers, have taken time to enjoy the holidays and I assume that you are already deep into a terrific New Year. There’s always hope on the horizon, so let’s strive to be Fine in ’99! If you have any questions or suggestions regarding HOD business, please contact the committee chairs, House officers, or me at (214) 265-9533, or fax (214) 692-9621, or mairsgeol<at>aol.com. House of Delegates Officer CandidatesBy: Jean R. Lemmon, Secretary-EditorDetails about the AAPG activities and career experiences of our officer candidates were published in the October issue of the newsletter. To give you a more personal dimension, I asked each of our officer candidates to write a 250-word response to the following questions:
Responses from the candidates:
Committee Reports RETURN TO TOPRules and Procedures CommitteeBy: Lowell Lischer, ChairmanThe Rules and Procedures Committee has a number of items to address relative to the House of Delegates Rules and Procedures this year. Changes are necessary to; (1) make the HOD Election Campaign Policy the same as the one used by the AAPG, (2) incorporate the four House awards into the language pertaining to the Honors and Awards Committee, and (3) develop language governing the submission in writing of committee reports at least two weeks prior to the House meeting. In addition, there are anticipated changes coming from the work of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. Last year’s Rules and Procedures Committee had addressed these possible changes, so, hopefully, this year it will be necessary for the committee only to review what had already been considered. Summit on Committees RETURN TO TOPBy: R. R. Gries and W. A. Morgan, ChairmenVision for Continuing Education RETURN TO TOPThis session examined the vision for AAPG continuing education and discussed steps to bring this vision to reality. Vision
IssuesSeveral issues must be addressed to accomplish this vision, including (keyed to the vision statements):
Recommendations:Based on our discussions, we highlighted the following list of recommendations and action items to accomplish those recommendations.
Action Items:
ParticipantsAAPG Martha
Lou Broussard, AAPG Vice President Sister
Societies Membership and Students RETURN TO TOPThe purpose of this session was to look at issues which concern committees involved in membership issues, including: the Membership Committee, International Liaison, Visiting Distinguished Lecturers, Youth Activities, and committees involved with student activities (Academic Liaison, Grants-in-Aid, Student Chapters, Visiting Geologist Program). Participants quickly identified two major areas of concern:
Out of the brainstorming and discussion of these issues, a number of proposals and recommendations developed, which, when completed, will help everyone do a better job, and do it more effectively. A summary of those recommendations follows. Joint AAPG/SEG MembershipThe distinction between geologists and geophysicists has blurred considerably over the last few years and many members would benefit from having membership in both AAPG and SEG. Participants recommended that the AAPG Executive Committee investigate joint membership opportunities with SEG. Two types of joint membership options are recommended, full and partial. Full membership would entitle the member to the Explorer, Leading Edge and both Bulletins. Partial membership would entitle the member to the Explorer, Leading Edge and one Bulletin. Membership categories would remain unchanged for both organizations. The ad hoc committee should also examine areas in which AAPG and SEG (and other Sister Societies) can better work together, particularly at the committee level. The feasibility of a periodic joint or back-to-back annual convention should be considered. Develop an Information Packet for Committee MembersAll too often, committee members, including the chair and vice chair, are not fully aware of the mission, duties, and responsibilities of their committee. Additionally, they are often unaware of the members and/or activities of associated committees with which there should be some cooperation. Therefore, the Committee on Committees, working with AAPG Headquarters, should develop a kit for all committee members (or at least the chair and vice-chair) which includes an Operations Manual, the Committees Responsibilities Manual, the AAPG Promotional Brochure (see Membership Dept.), a "This is AAPG" overview, and a list of key contacts from related committees and sister societies. Establish a Distinguished Educator ProgramMany companies expect entry level employees to have the background needed to be self-starters. Yet many students get minimal exposure to the skills and methodologies they need to do so. The Education Committee, perhaps working with the Distinguished Lecturer Committee, should develop a series of 1 to 2 day short courses, and possibly field seminars, which can be taken to universities. It is recommended that the program be developed and run on a trial basis for 3 to 5 years. Develop a Coordinated Annual Mailing to UniversitiesEach year several committees send mailings to the academic community. These mailings arrive at different times and often are sent to different individuals in the departments, diffusing their impact. To more effectively communicate our services to universities, and to facilitate developing a more effective and coordinated series of activities and programs for students and faculty, the Executive Committee should ensure that all committees working with the academic community meet during the annual AAPG Leadership Conference in February with the expressed purpose of developing a single mailing to the academic community. The annual mailing would include a summary of all activities and programs that are targeted for students and faculty. The mailing should occur in late April (US), with an October follow-up and should be sent to a single contact person at each university. Host Periodic Student ExposRecruiting student members is vital for the continued growth and success of the Association. Retaining them as members is dependent on their entering industry upon graduation. Any service AAPG can provide which facilitates employment of student members is of direct value to the Association. Last year AAPG (Student Chapter Committee) supported an exposition of students who met in Houston to showcase their work before a group of industry recruiters. Some students had poster sessions, others simply distributed their resumes. This meeting was highly successful, and a follow-up is being planned for this year in Denver. This is an excellent opportunity for AAPG to provide a needed service to its student members and academia in general. We recommend that the Executive Committee charge the Academic Liaison Committee with conducting one or more Student Expositions per year. Develop a Mentor ProgramRetirements within the industry over the last decade have reduced the availability of highly experienced members who had served as mentors to less experienced staff. Many of these retired members drop their AAPG membership because they think that it is no longer of benefit to them. Additionally, new and less experienced staff do not have mentors available to them. The group recommended that the Executive Committee charge the Membership Committee with the task of implementing a mentor program that pairs experienced member volunteers with students. This program should be established on a trial basis in Houston, New Orleans, the Mid-Continent, the Eastern Section, and the Pacific Section. SEG is working on a similar program, and we should consider working with them. To assist those who volunteer to mentor, it is recommended that the DPA consider developing a guide to mentoring (similar to the Career Guide edited by Pete Rose). If the program is successful, then AAPG should consider adding a "Mentor" membership category. This would help to identify and honor those who volunteer. Host a New Member Reception at the Annual MeetingAlthough the Association invests a considerable effort recruiting new members, it does little to actually welcome them into the Association once they join. Many members, and new members in particular, are unaware of all of the various committees and activities available to them. The Membership Committee should host a reception during the Annual Meeting (Saturday night?) to welcome new members. In conjunction with this reception, there should be a poster display highlighting the charge and activities of all AAPG committees, as well as a place for new members to volunteer or to offer suggestions. This reception would not only serve to welcome them to the Association, but also provide them an opportunity to learn more about the Association and to volunteer to serve it. Robbie Gries has graciously offered to serve as a coordinator for this effort. The Committee on Committees should help her develop a series of posters which highlight each of the standing committees. These posters could then be displayed in the AAPG area of the exhibit hall. Other General Recommendations
ParticipantsAAPG Wayne
Ahr, Vice-Chairman, Academic Liaison Committee SEG Committee Structure and Procedures RETURN TO TOPCOMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE was the theme of this session, which focused on improving the operations of AAPG's committees. Following are the main discussion points addressed by this session. How is Our Selection of Chairs (Vice Chairs) Working?A bylaws change is currently before the House of Delegates to change the term of Chairman/Vice Chairman to three years. The group suggested it may be more advantageous to 1) leave the term of the vice chairman at one year and 2) offer alternative language for the selection of the vice chairman in the proposed bylaws change. Setting the vice chairman term at one year will not limit the vice chairman from serving consecutive terms. However, it would allow more members to gain experience and add to the experience base for prospective committee chairmen. Committee vacancies and in particular chair vacancies should be identified at the earliest possible date [three months prior to end of term (June 30), if possible] and work begun as soon as possible to identifying a replacement. Is the Role of the Committee on Committees Clear to Other Committee Chairs?The function of the Committee on Committees is to assist the AAPG President in identifying chair vacancies by soliciting recommendations and identifying qualified members for consideration as possible successors. But the AAPG President is the sole authority for appointing committee chairs. The roles of the Committee on Committees and generally many AAPG committees are NOT well understood. The group recommended that the Executive Committee take immediate action to have each AAPG committee (and the Division committees) review and update their individual mission statements and submit them to the Executive Committee for approval. Following revisions and Executive Committee approval, mission statements should be widely distributed to the membership using the Explorer and the Web site. The group also thought that a wider distribution of the annual "Leadership" directory would assist in keeping the AAPG membership informed. Recognizing that it is difficult for Executive Committee liaisons to attend all of the committee meetings to which they are assigned, we recommended the Committee on Committees, like the Executive Committee, assign liaison responsibilities to each of its members to assist in the liaison effort. Recruiting Committee Members and Improving Committee EffectivenessThe following recommendations were made to identify prospective additional members and recruit these members into the committee network.
The group recommended new committee chairs and members be targeted for training as facilitators either as a group or individually. The group also suggested a Wednesday afternoon meeting between Chairs and the Executive Committee at the annual convention. The meeting would allow the Executive Committee to have a clearer understanding of the work being performed by each committee and identify the staffing and support needs of the committees. Is Staff Adequate to Fulfill Committee Needs?Committees needed more information about available help from Headquarters staff. An addition to the Web page containing general information about staff liaison assignments and available help was suggested. ConclusionsAdditional effort to publicize committee activities is one of the greatest needs for improving committee effectiveness. The published annual report, although necessary, is inadequate in getting the full attention of the AAPG membership. Wider distribution of the mission statement, activities, and make-up of each committee is needed to insure that members are better informed of what the AAPG is doing for them. An expanded Web site with more current and timely information of each committee's charge and "highlight" write-ups on each committee for publication in the Explorer are recommended. Participants:Leader:
Lowell Lischer (substituting for
George Bole, Chairman, Committee on Committees) AAPG Sister
Societies RETURN TO TOP
MEMORANDUMNovember 23, 1998 TO: Fellow Delegates and Alternates AAPG House of Delegates FROM: Peter R. Rose, Chairman, House of Delegates Constitution & By-Laws Committee The purpose of this letter is to communicate to you the results of the survey questionnaire on the International Representation Committee’s proposed legislation upon which you will be voting on April 11, 1999 at the National AAPG meeting in San Antonio. As you will recall, we sent out questionnaires to each of you on September 28, 1998. Your response was gratifying – 75% of the 224 delegates and 43% of the 118 alternates responded – 64% of all questionnaires mailed out were completed and returned. Thank you! The tabulated results and comments are enclosed. I encourage you to study them. Your responses indicate overwhelming support for the proposed amendment, in every single one of its individual components. On average, 84% of you answered "yes" to the ten questions so phrased. Only one, Question 4, concerning the creation of six international regions, received less than 80% approval, and 74% of you supported that provision. For easy reference, we have included the original questionnaire, upon which all your opinions are tabulated in relation to each question. You will also find copies of individual comments you wrote on the questionnaires. They range from very complimentary to quite negative – I have included them all. As you will see, a few people thought the questionnaire was biased. It was never intended to be a comprehensive review of the questions, but rather an explanation of the rationale that led the original International Representation Committee to formulate each of the several components, which you were free to endorse or reject. Offsetting those few criticisms of bias were others who thought the survey was excellent. The results of this survey will be published in the next issue of the HOD Newsletter. It may also be published in the February Special Explorer Newsletter, which we will ask the editor to do. But in any case, we thought you would like to know the results right away. I thank you, as well as the hard-working members of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee – George Eynon, Rich Green, and Clint Moore – for their dedicated efforts, and for the continued support we have received from Chairman Tom Mairs, Chairman-elect John Hogg, and Secretary Jean Lemmon. Faithfully, Peter
R. Rose PS – Please note my new address, phone, and fax numbers; e-mail is unchanged. |
||||||||||||||
DELEGATES RETURN TO TOP
| Survey Statistics | |||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates qualified to vote | 224 | ||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates returning ballots | 169 | ||||||||
| % of Delegates taking part in Survey | 75% | ||||||||
| Questions | Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | |||
| 1 |
Fewer Presidents on Adv. Council? 3 down to 1? |
140 | 27 | 2 | 83% | 16% | 1% | ||
| 2 | HOD Chairman-Elect on Advisory Council? | 147 | 21 | 1 | 87% | 12% | 1% | ||
| 3 |
Essentially equal representation for HOD & EC on AC? |
139 | 28 | 2 | 82% | 17% | 1% | ||
| 4 | Creation of 6 Regions equal to 6 Sections? | 123 | 43 | 3 | 73% | 25% | 2% | ||
| 5 |
Minimum number of 750 for seat on Advisory Council? |
142 |
21 |
6 |
84% |
12% |
4% |
||
| Higher | Lower | 750 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %750 | % Abstain | ||
| 6 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 43 | 18 | 102 | 6 | 25% | 11% | 60% | 4% |
|
Yes |
No |
Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 7 | Minimum number of 5,000 for extra seats on AC? | 139 | 29 | 1 | 82% | 17% | 1% | ||
|
Higher |
Lower | 5000 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %5000 | % Abstain | ||
| 8 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 9 | 46 | 103 | 11 | 5% | 27% | 61% | 7% |
| Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 9 | Should the AC region & section seats be elected? | 137 | 29 | 3 | 81% | 17% | 2% | ||
| 10 |
Eliminate the AC seats appointed by EC? |
148 |
17 |
|
4 |
88% |
10% |
2% |
|
| 11 | Ten signature petition to be region/section nominee? | 141 | 23 | 5 | 83% | 14% | 3% | ||
| 12 | Establish minimum requirements for AC service? | 137 | 31 | 1 | 81% | 18% | 1% | ||
ALTERNATES RETURN TO TOP
| Survey Statistics | |||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates qualified to vote | 118 | ||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates returning ballots | 81 | ||||||||
| % of Delegates taking part in Survey | 45% | ||||||||
| Questions | Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | |||
| 1 |
Fewer Presidents on Adv. Council? 3 down to 1? |
46 | 5 | 0 | 90% | 10% | 0% | ||
| 2 | HOD Chairman-Elect on Advisory Council? | 58 | 5 | 0 | 92% | 8% | 0% | ||
| 3 |
Essentially equal representation for HOD & EC on AC? |
46 | 5 | 0 | 90% | 10% | 0% | ||
| 4 | Creation of 6 Regions equal to 6 Sections? | 40 | 9 | 2 | 78% | 18% | 4% | ||
| 5 |
Minimum number of 750 for seat on Advisory Council? |
48 |
3 |
0 |
94% |
6% |
0% |
||
| Higher | Lower | 750 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %750 | % Abstain | ||
| 6 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 13 | 3 | 33 | 2 | 25% | 6% | 65% | 4% |
|
Yes |
No |
Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 7 | Minimum number of 5,000 for extra seats on AC? | 42 | 7 | 2 | 82% | 14% | 4% | ||
|
Higher |
Lower | 5000 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %5000 | % Abstain | ||
| 8 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 2 | 7 | 38 | 4 | 4% | 14% | 75% | 7% |
| Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 9 | Should the AC region & section seats be elected? | 46 | 4 | 1 | 90% | 8% | 2% | ||
| 10 |
Eliminate the AC seats appointed by EC? |
42 |
7 |
|
2 |
82% |
14% |
4% |
|
| 11 | Ten signature petition to be region/section nominee? | 50 | 1 | 0 | 98% | 2% | 0% | ||
| 12 | Establish minimum requirements for AC service? | 40 | 11 | 0 | 78% | 22% | 0% | ||
DELEGATES & ALTERNATES RETURN TO TOP
| Survey Statistics | |||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates qualified to vote | 342 | ||||||||
| Total Number of Delegates returning ballots | 220 | ||||||||
| % of Delegates taking part in Survey | 64% | ||||||||
| Questions | Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | |||
| 1 |
Fewer Presidents on Adv. Council? 3 down to 1? |
186 | 32 | 2 | 85% | 15% | 0% | ||
| 2 | HOD Chairman-Elect on Advisory Council? | 194 | 25 | 1 | 88% | 11% | 1% | ||
| 3 |
Essentially equal representation for HOD & EC on AC? |
184 | 34 | 2 | 84% | 15% | 1% | ||
| 4 | Creation of 6 Regions equal to 6 Sections? | 163 | 52 | 5 | 74% | 24% | 2% | ||
| 5 |
Minimum number of 750 for seat on Advisory Council? |
190 |
24 |
6 |
86% |
11% |
3% |
||
| Higher | Lower | 750 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %750 | % Abstain | ||
| 6 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 56 | 21 | 135 | 8 | 25% | 10% | 61% | 4% |
|
Yes |
No |
Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 7 | Minimum number of 5,000 for extra seats on AC? | 181 | 36 | 3 | 83% | 16% | 1% | ||
|
Higher |
Lower | 5000 | Abstain | % Hi | % Lo | %5000 | % Abstain | ||
| 8 | Would you like the minimum number higher or lower? | 11 | 53 | 141 | 15 | 5% | 24% | 64% | 7% |
| Yes | No | Abstain | % Yes | % No | % Abstain | ||||
| 9 | Should the AC region & section seats be elected? | 184 | 33 | 4 | 83% | 15% | 2% | ||
| 10 |
Eliminate the AC seats appointed by EC? |
190 |
24 |
|
6 |
86% |
11% |
3% |
|
| 11 | Ten signature petition to be region/section nominee? | 191 | 24 | 5 | 87% | 11% | 2% | ||
| 12 | Establish minimum requirements for AC service? | 177 | 42 | 1 | 81% | 19% | 0% | ||
Letters to the Editor RETURN TO TOP
Dear Editor, RETURN TO TOP
In responding to Pete Rose’s questionnaire I am reminded of my feelings at the Dallas HOD meeting. We seem to be struggling towards a bicameral legislature. The HOD already represents the membership on a population basis, I do not think that the Advisory Council needs to repeat that representation. We should consider additional representation in the Advisory Council on a regional basis. I respect the need for appointed experience on the Advisory Council and think that the International Representation Committee’s (IRC) approach to that is excellent. However, I also think that if we wish to be a truly INTERNATIONAL organization we need to hear the problems and concerns of all the international groups at a high level within AAPG. I think we should consider Advisory Council membership for all the IRC defined regions. The evolutionary change of the Advisory Council from an "Old Boy’s Club" to a true advisor to the Executive Committee is an important opportunity to broaden the scope of AAPG based upon a realistic knowledge of the industry as it is today.
Sincerely,
Mel Erskine
TO: AAPG HOUSE OF DELEGATES MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES RETURN TO TOP
FROM: CONCERNED MEMBERS OF AAPG
In response to the pending Bylaws Amendments proposed by the House of Delegates (HOD) International Representation Committee, we, the undersigned members of AAPG, have some serious concerns. These concerns are not only with some of the proposed amendments themselves, but with the process by which they are made.
We are, in general, supportive of many of the goals of these proposals. They accomplish some positive objectives in the international arena. Some of the amendments are innovative and would strengthen AAPG’s international presence without sacrificing it’s domestic agenda.
The proposed amendments were, in brief: 1) organize International Regions, 2) provide for representation in the HOD for those regions, and 3) reorganize the Advisory Council (AC), including placing the Chairman-Elect of the HOD as a voting member of that council. Although these amendments could be technically within HOD’s constitutional authority, we do not think that the HOD should have the right to alter the AC without the concurrence and support of the AC.
A lot of rhetoric, both oral and written, has come out of the confrontation over these amendments. Basically, our position is: one branch of the Association should not have the power and right to unilaterally alter the makeup of another branch.
The proponents of these amendments have stated in writing: "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". If the HOD has the rights claimed in this statement, they could also unilaterally restructure the Executive Committee (EC), dictate its duties, decide when it meets, and even make the chairman of the HOD its chairman. The HOD, under this interpretation, could neuter the duly elected officers of the Association and make the EC a rubber stamp. This is not what we want. It is not a democratic form of government when one body can alter the makeup and authority of another body without the affected body’s consent.
The proponents of these amendments have repeatedly stated and written that the HOD passed a resolution recommending these changes with only one dissenting vote. In fact, according to the minutes of that meeting, the HOD voted to accept the report of the International Representation Committee and referred it to other committees, including the EC. To say that the HOD approved the recommendations is simply not so according to the minutes. Accepting a report and passing a resolution are two entirely different things. Regardless, the repeated statements that the HOD had voted to accept these recommendations with only one dissenting vote have served to incite members of the HOD and to drive a wedge between them and the EC.
Specifically, we have some serious concerns regarding the proposed changes in the Advisory Council, many of which, we think, went beyond the charge to this committee. These concerns include the proposal in the House of Delegates to change the bylaws to reconstruct the Advisory Council. Our first reaction is that the Advisory Council, according to the bylaws, makes recommendations to the Executive Committee. It seems to us that by allowing the House of Delegates to dictate the composition of the Advisory Council, the separation of power between the Executive and Legislative bodies of our Association is compromised. We particularly object to the House of Delegates proposal to put one of their own (the Chairman-Elect) on the Advisory Council. Even the Executive Committee does not have a representative on the Advisory Council---although the President is an invited observer. Perhaps the Chairman of the HOD should also be an invited observer.
Some of these changes are, in our opinion, ill-advised. Within the Advisory Council are both the Honors and Awards Committee and the Nominations Committee. Through these committees, the Advisory Council recommends to the Executive Committee honorees and nominees for Executive Committee offices. The Executive Committee is not obliged to honor these recommendations as presented, but they are obliged to pick the honorees and nominees for office from the names submitted by the Advisory Council. The Executive Committee has no hand in picking nominees for the House of Delegates. Conversely, the House of Delegates should not have a hand in picking nominees for the Executive Committee.
More to the point, however, is the plan to eliminate two of the past presidents from the Advisory Council. Because the past presidents have been more involved with all of the affairs of the AAPG than anyone else on the Advisory Council, they are better informed as to who is deserving and who is capable. To throw away that experience would be a big mistake. To imply that the past presidents have too much influence because they are three of 15 members is an insult to the other members of the Advisory Council–they are all free thinking independent individuals.
We urge you to seriously consider these issues. We also urge you to vote against the part which alters the makeup of the Advisory Council. In addition, we submit that this issue should be settled by proposing a constitutional amendment clarifying the separation of responsibility and power between the governance bodies. Specifically, it should conform to recommendation (3) of the Committee on Constitutionality and Bylaw Amendment Process (COCBAP): "The EC should pass a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment would prevent any one body (AC, EC, or HOD) from proposing amendments which would "alter the composition, manner of selection, the terms of office, the specific duties, responsibilities, and other matters relevant to such bodies and officers" without the consent of the affected body. This resolution for amendment should be submitted to the HOD, and if passed by a majority vote, it would be submitted to entire membership for vote".
This is the only fair way to decide. The HOD would need a simple majority to pass the amendment but then the membership would have to approve it by a 2/3 majority. This is an issue that the members should decide. We urge you to give them that chance.
The undersigned, although not unanimous in support of all facets of this letter, are nonetheless unanimous in urging that:
1) the amendment pertaining to changing the makeup of the Advisory Council should be defeated.2) a constitutional amendment should be offered in the form recommended by the COCBAP Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
|
Louis
C. Bortz |
George
R. Gibson |
Robert
G. Lindblom |
Original Signatures On File
RESPONSE TO CONCERNED MEMBERS OF AAPG RETURN TO TOP
As part of the ongoing debate about the pending Bylaws amendments, we welcome the chance to respond to the foregoing comments of Mr. Toby Carleton and his co-signatories. We’re pleased that they favor the proposed changes to make international members more involved in the House of Delegates (HOD) and Advisory Council (AC), which are two of AAPG’s three governing bodies. On January 9, 1999, the HOD sponsored an all day Resolution Conference involving a broad spectrum of AAPG leaders, including Mr. Carleton and co-signer Mr. Bruno Hanson. The aim of this conference was to reach consensus on compromise legislation which could be publicly endorsed by most of the legislation’s opponents, consistent with the overwhelming support already expressed by Delegates and Alternates in our recent HOD survey. It is our hope that, by the time you read this, such agreement will have been reached, and can be announced. We respond below to the specific points raised.
Paragraphs 4 and 5: Our quoted statement, "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", is factual, and derives logically from all existing pertinent clauses in the Bylaws (Article IV, Section 1; Article XIV, Sections 1 and 4). However, Mr. Carleton takes it out of context, ignoring both preceding and following sentences of the original, which emphasized the practical difficulty of passing legislation requiring a "super-majority", that is, 2/3 of members voting. We think such stringent legislative requirements were intentional by those who drafted the Bylaws. Passage of such legislation would indeed demand extremely strong grassroots bipartisan support -- the kind of membership support that could only be summoned in cases where compelling reasons for change were widely apparent. Note that, under the U.S. Constitution, unwanted legislative changes to the Executive Branch require a 2/3 majority to override Presidential veto. Like those who drafted the Bylaws, we trust the good sense of House Delegates and Alternates, and with all due respect, we submit that the cause for alarm about a revolutionary HOD seems excessive. The HOD has no interest in taking over AAPG -- only in making it more representative!
Paragraph 6: Mr. Carleton suggests that the HOD did not follow proper legislative procedure in approving the recommendations of the International Representation Committee (IRC), when it voted to accept their report, with one dissenting vote. According to Roberts Rules of Order, when a report is accepted, the recommendations in the report are also accepted. Each of the three original recommendations were prefaced, "That the House of Delegates Constitution and Bylaws Committee modify the Bylaws of this Association as discussed within this document". Also, Mr. Craig Blackstock, AAPG’s attorney who reviews all proposed legislation, has affirmed (and subsequently re-affirmed), that the process followed was legal and correct. Finally, upon unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Constitutionality and Bylaw Amendment Process (COCBAP), AAPG’s Executive Committee (EC) has now affirmed the legality of the proposed amendment. Bottom Line: "it’s legal, it always was, and it passed with only one dissenting vote; let’s move on."
Paragraph 7: This concern is unfounded. The IRC’s charge was to: 1) form International Regions, and 2) integrate their members within the HOD and AC in an effective manner. Adding them to the AC necessitated changes in its composition which the IRC felt were necessary and appropriate in order to achieve a fully elected body, representing all major parts of AAPG. It may be that some differences here stem from two viewpoints about the AC, that is, whether it only has obligations to the EC, or whether is a separate and distinct body. Certainly, the Constitution (Article V) and Bylaws (Article V) are clear that it is separate and has duties beyond advice to the EC.
With regard to "separation of powers", given that the AC is separate from the EC, then the makeup of the AC does fall under the purview of the HOD, which may therefore modify its composition, as indeed they have already done at least twice before, first, when the HOD added the three Division Presidents to the AC, and later, when they agreed to allow the EC to appoint three additional counselors.
Should a member of the HOD be on the AC? Given that the AC is not a handmaiden of the EC, it should give counsel to the entire Association, therefore it should be composed of representatives of all main parts of the AAPG. Mr. Carleton is factually correct that the EC does not have a representative on the AC. From a practical standpoint, however, the interests of the EC have been consistently and strongly advocated in AC deliberations by the three past-presidents, and the current President, who is an invited (and participating) guest. In the interests of balance, therefore, it seems appropriate to have voting HOD representation on the AC.
Paragraph 8: There appear to be several logical flaws in this argument. First, the HOD, through its Chairman, who sits on the EC, already does take part in the process of officer nominations, based on the list provided by the AC. Second, if the AC is to give counsel to the entire Association, then why shouldn’t the HOD have official AC representation, just as the Divisions, Regions, and Sections? After all, the official delegates and alternates of the House have always included Past-presidents and other officers, Division officers, and AC members among its more than 200 delegates. The HOD welcomes all AAPG viewpoints, believing that such communication strengthens AAPG.
Paragraph 9: Mr. Carleton’s final point concerns the proposal to eliminate two of three past-presidents from the AC. Many members think that three years’ AC service, on top of three prior years (run for office, serve as President-elect, and the Presidential term) is too long a commitment (some past-presidents have privately agreed). Also, this 6-year commitment has been a definite deterrent in finding qualified presidential candidates.
In past AC deliberations, have the three past-presidents had undue influence? Based on both our personal experiences as past Advisory Counselors, we believe they have. Many past (and some current) AC members concur.
On the other hand, it is also true that the past-presidents, despite a strong "establishment viewpoint", do represent considerable experience and knowledge about AAPG members and affairs. Perhaps the Resolution Conference will have reached a satisfactory accommodation by the time you read this. We very much hope for a productive outcome to the current stalemate.
Paragraph 10: The very strong endorsement of the proposed amendment by Delegates and Alternates indicates that the membership support the proposed changes. But the larger question remains, as to whether the HOD may affect compositional changes in the AC (or EC), against their wishes. Here, it is important to understand that the COCBAP Committee was not unanimously in favor of passage of such a constitutional amendment. Far from it -- 5 of the 12-person committee opposed passage! But all 12 of the Committee agreed that the membership should be allowed to vote on this issue, if such an amendment should be proposed. Considering the overwhelming support for the IRC amendment manifested by the recent HOD survey, passage would, of course, be unlikely, requiring first a simple majority (50%) in the HOD, followed by 2/3 majority of members voting by mailed ballots.
Moreover, it is clear, from the long-continued, tenacious opposition to the IRC amendment, that passage of the constitutional amendment favored by Mr. Carleton and his group would make future change in AAPG governance essentially impossible, if such change were not in the interest of the Executive Committee and Tulsa Headquarters.
Conclusion
Change is painful, and never supported by all. Yet AAPG is clearly in a time of transition, following the extended tenure of its former Executive Director (one of the signers of the Carleton letter). The petroleum industry is itself in a time of great change also.
There are no "bad guys" in this conflict -- only well-meaning people who love the organization and want it to prosper. They have invested much time, energy, and money in AAPG affairs, and we appreciate and honor their dedication and service. Of course, their image of AAPG is based on their past service. In the past, however, AAPG governance was an oligarchy, strongly influenced by the Executive Director, and dedicated primarily to the growth of AAPG as a business, and only secondarily to the interests of the general membership.
But the Ancien Regime has passed. Now there is strong sentiment among the membership, and in its representative body, the HOD, for constructive change benefiting the entire membership. The proposed IRC amendment moves in that direction; the amendment favored by Mr. Carleton and his co-signers moves to ossify the existing organization. We urge all House Delegates, Alternates, and the entire AAPG membership to give these issues their thoughtful consideration.
John
R. Hogg
HOD Chairman-elect
Peter
R. Rose
Chairman, HOD Constitution and Bylaws Committee
Editor’s Note: As this newsletter went to press, we are pleased to convey the Resolution Committee’s report that they were successful in reaching provisional consensus on compromise language. Further details will be reported as final agreement is affirmed.