The AAPG Executive Committee voted 6-1 to accept a report by the ad hoc Headquarters Location Committee recommending the AAPG administrative center remain in Tulsa.
The committee, consisting of past president Marlan Downey, chair; past AAPG deputy executive director Don O’Nesky; and Doug Ratcliff, concluded:
- Relocation of the head office from Tulsa would involve major expense at the time of relocation and significant increases in yearly operating costs.
- Relocation would be a major financial blow to the AAPG Foundation and would lessen funds available to support the Association’s mission.
- Relocation of the Tulsa office would not appear to offer any significant improvements to member services.
- Membership services are becoming more “virtual,” and improvements require new equipment and processes, not location change.
Focusing on costs and financial benefits of various courses of action, the committee included expense comparisons, forecasted personnel and pension costs and considered AAPG’s financial standing as well as the financial impact on the AAPG Foundation, which owns buildings where the Association is housed and also funds various AAPG activities.
Sister societies’ activities and demographics also were explored, as well as their approach to satellite offices.
The committee also studied opening of offices outside the United States, noting “there appears to be substantial benefits to AAPG opening international offices, but it most likely will require a re-organization of AAPG that will involve the House of Delegates.”
The report also said there are legalities that must be attended to in opening international offices -- stating “AAPG cannot go to a foreign country, take out a checkbook, rent a building, hire staff and begin operations in a foreign country” -- and provided a due diligence checklist of considerations.
The committee was formed in December by then-president Peter R. Rose, who wrote “the Executive Committee frequently has been asked about relocating the Tulsa HQ, usually to Houston,” and that “in light of the current global energy transition” needed to be addressed.