Geographical Distribution Ad-Hoc Committee

The Geographical Distribution Committee completed its work over the winter of 2003-2004. The following article summarizes their findings.

Background: Problem Statement, Description and Schedule

In recent years there has been a feeling by some members that perhaps the geographical distribution of New England Section Board members has been overly skewed towards Massachusetts. Others felt that since Massachusetts makes up approximately 50 percent of the Section, it is natural and fitting that the board has more Massachusetts members.

While the recent trend has been that Massachusetts members have dominated the presidency, Maine has also had three presidents in the recent past. Longer ago, Connecticut had several presidents. There have been feelings on both sides of this issue and the current board felt that the issue had to be addressed. At the president's request, the vice-president formed a committee for this purpose and served as chair.

This issue coincided with recent discussion about the role of the Past Presidents Council, and how we as a Section can take advantage of the experience of those who have led before us. With this in mind, we decided to use the Past Presidents Council as a resource to examine the geographical distribution issue. Presidents who have served in the last fifteen years were invited to serve on this committee. The process followed by this committee is described below:

• Each committee member was asked to reply with initial thoughts on the issue.
• Sub-groups were formed to contact current members in each state to gain an understanding of the general membership's feelings on the issue.
• Each committee member was then asked to summarize general membership's feelings. The committee members were then asked to describe any changes to their own initial position, based on the general membership input.
• The results were discussed at the March 30, 2004 board meeting.
• The board of directors discussed the findings and voted to accept the report.

Committee Members

The following past presidents agreed to participate on this committee:

• Massachusetts - Frank Tramontozzi, Rod Emery, Doug Prentiss, Joe Herr, Gary Hebert, Bill Lyons, Jack Gillon, John Kennedy
• Maine - Tom Gorrill, Diane Moribito
• Connecticut - Bob Jurasin, Bob DeSanto, Jim Bubaris
• Rhode Island - Paul Smith
• Vermont - Dave Scott (Not a past president, but graciously agreed to accept the assignment.)
• New Hampshire - Kim Hazarvartian

Results

The committee's findings were universally in agreement that the current system works fine. While one or two members suggested alternative methods to select directors, even they agreed that the current system works. The most common observations were:

• Those who are elected as Section directors, and subsequently rise through the ranks, are members who attend section meetings, work hard on committees and otherwise distinguish themselves.
• Since formation of the state chapters, many get involved at that level and are not as focused on the Section.
• The nominations committee should reach out to each state by contacting the chapter presidents for potential director nominations.

Recommendations

While the basic system does not need fixing, there were still some recommendations the committee feels would be worthwhile:

• When soliciting input for nominations of directors, the Nominating Committee should seek input from the chapter officers of each state. While Rhode Island currently does not have a chapter, plans are underway to start one.
• The Nominating Committee should still be free to accept or reject nomination suggestions from the chapters, or to nominate others on their own.
• State/student chapter presidents should be encouraged to attend board meetings.
• We need to promote communication between the Section and the chapters. The Section and the chapters should actively encourage attendance to each others' meetings. While this is a two-way effort between the Section and the chapters, the Section board members should take a leadership role by attending some chapter meetings, particularly from states other than their own.
• The Section should put together a "How To" memorandum on the election process with recommendations for how members can get involved and position themselves for election as a director.
• While no one seems to think a formalized process is necessary, the Nomination Committee should be aware of geographical distribution.
• It should be stressed, however, that recognizing the efforts and talents of potential nominees, regardless of their home state, takes priority over trying to effect exact geographical distribution.

This summary of the committee's work was presented at the March 30, 2004 board of directors meeting. The full report is available upon request from Ken Petraglia at 617-357-7755.