• Welcome to the Framer's Corner Forum, hosted by the Professional Picture Framers Association. (PPFA)
    You will have to register a free account, before you can SEARCH or access the system. If you have already registered, please LOG IN
    If you have already registered, but can't remember your password, CLICK HERE to reset it.

Boundary Reorganization

Status
Not open for further replies.
That map is cool Randy. The pins make it look like were okay, until you zoom in. A lesson in perspective for me.

I tried to do one of those a few times, you are way techie smarter than me. But thanks for doing it.
Is that from a fairly up to date list? Knowing you it is.

Thanks, Randy.
No it is from 2012, so give or take a few names and numbers, but we all understand the gist of it.
 
Thank you all for the wonderful conversations going on thus far.

At this time, we are concentrating on the continental United States for chapter boundaries. For our amazing members outside those boundaries, please keep in mind you are welcome to ALL PPFA events! Chapter boundaries are for competition entries and financial and PPFA paperwork boundaries.

When the CRC was first tasked with this issue, the idea of open membership was first proposed. Unfortunately, this is not a viable solution for National PPFA/PMA. So new solutions were pursued. This current proposal is a couple years in the making: with many discussions between chapter leaders and National board members.

Again, keep an open mind. Technology is a wonderful thing to keep members in touch with each other and in the loop. Larger territories might have to work more diligently with enewsletters, emails and skype for communicating with members.

There is nothing to stop members in one region to get together and have a meeting, and have a larger event in a more populated part of the same chapter another time. There are no limits to how many chapter events are held in a year.


Thank you all for participating in the discussion and the solutions and for helping build a stronger PPFA!

-Sarah
CRC chairperson
 
I'm sorry but english is no my first language, would you understand if i wrote in spanish
Do not let the language be a barrier, friend! I'm not sure which of these would be the best translation, but...

Ojalá que pudiera escribir en Español tan bien como se escribe en inglés.

Me gustaría escribir en español, así como se escribe en inglés.

Lamento que no pudiera escribir en español así como escribe en inglés.
 
... When the CRC was first tasked with this issue, the idea of open membership was first proposed. Unfortunately, this is not a viable solution for National PPFA/PMA. ...
Sorry, but, what the heck does this mean?
I know the database can handle it.
A simple you get to choose a different chapter could be a one time thing.
I still haven't heard a rational reason why this can't happen.
What am I missing?
 
Sorry, but, what the heck does this mean?
I know the database can handle it.
A simple you get to choose a different chapter could be a one time thing.
I still haven't heard a rational reason why this can't happen.
What am I missing?

Hi Cliff,

I have sent a message to find out if we could look at this. I am not the techie person you are so I did not comment as I had no idea if the database would be able to do this. I am waiting a response and will let you know when I find out.

Thanks Robin
 
"Chapter boundaries are for competition entries and financial and PPFA paperwork boundaries.

When the CRC was first tasked with this issue, the idea of open membership was first proposed. Unfortunately, this is not a viable solution for National PPFA/PMA. So new solutions were pursued. This current proposal is a couple years in the making: with many discussions between chapter leaders and National board members."


I will apologize in advance if my tone turns argumentative with this response.

Up until this morning I found this an interesting, and I thought productive, discussion. But it now appears that we have not been involved in the discussion I thought we were having. I challenge that open enrollment is not viable. It might not be convenient. It might not be as easy as just consolidating some chapters and drawing new boundaries. But it is not unworkable. Hundreds of organizations are organized this way. I thought the objective was a restructuring that would better serve the membership and encourage both participation and growth. The strength of an organization is in having it's members feel a sense of belonging. "Allowing" someone to attend functions as a visiting member, where they have no voting rights, and cannot participate in the most conveniently located framing competition for them, along with their colleagues, does not foster a sense of membership. If someone consistently attends events at one chapter but never goes to those held by their "assigned" chapter, they are not going to be properly represented and the chapter business meetings will necessarily have to exclude these people. Given Randy's map, there are plenty of members who would benefit from selecting a chapter other than the one they will be assigned to.

It is hard enough to encourage participation in the framing competitions. I think there are several factors related to this and most of them should probably be discussed elsewhere in this forum. But I believe requiring someone to ship a contest entry to a chapter that is inconvenient, especially if they could take it to an event that is closer, and where they know the other framers, does nothing to stimulate participation.

My observation is that our priorities are mixed up. Instead of an organization of chapters that attract and support the members in a way that is meaningful to them, we seem to be more concerned with creating an organization of individuals and telling them where they have to vote and participate in our highlight event. We do this because creating an organizational structure that is convenient and beneficial to the members is "not viable".

I fail to understand why it makes any difference at all how an individual is assigned to a chapter as long as they belong to one. What difference does it make if a person belongs to a chapter because their address falls inside a box on a map or they checked a box on their application form? A chapter list is a chapter list. I don't see any finance restrictions or database management issues that are not manageable. I only see a "we've always done it this way" restriction. I think since we've always had geographically restricted chapters that seems to be the only perceived "viable" structure.

From what I'm reading on this forum there is very strong support, and a pretty strong rationale, for elective chapter membership. My question is, if the discussion was supposed to be limited to fine tuning of chapter boundaries why wasn't that stated up front?

Again, I apologize for this less than positive posting. But if we are serious about attracting more members and increasing activity, making a few chapter boundary changes ought not to be the biggest change we are willing to make.
 
Up until this morning I found this an interesting, and I thought productive, discussion. But it now appears that we have not been involved in the discussion I thought we were having. I challenge that open enrollment is not viable. It might not be convenient. It might not be as easy as just consolidating some chapters and drawing new boundaries. But it is not unworkable. Hundreds of organizations are organized this way. I thought the objective was a restructuring that would better serve the membership and encourage both participation and growth. The strength of an organization is in having it's members feel a sense of belonging. "Allowing" someone to attend functions as a visiting member, where they have no voting rights, and cannot participate in the most conveniently located framing competition for them, along with their colleagues, does not foster a sense of membership. If someone consistently attends events at one chapter but never goes to those held by their "assigned" chapter, they are not going to be properly represented and the chapter business meetings will necessarily have to exclude these people. Given Randy's map, there are plenty of members who would benefit from selecting a chapter other than the one they will be assigned to.

It is hard enough to encourage participation in the framing competitions. I think there are several factors related to this and most of them should probably be discussed elsewhere in this forum. But I believe requiring someone to ship a contest entry to a chapter that is inconvenient, especially if they could take it to an event that is closer, and where they know the other framers, does nothing to stimulate participation.

My observation is that our priorities are mixed up. Instead of an organization of chapters that attract and support the members in a way that is meaningful to them, we seem to be more concerned with creating an organization of individuals and telling them where they have to vote and participate in our highlight event. We do this because creating an organizational structure that is convenient and beneficial to the members is "not viable".

I fail to understand why it makes any difference at all how an individual is assigned to a chapter as long as they belong to one. What difference does it make if a person belongs to a chapter because their address falls inside a box on a map or they checked a box on their application form? A chapter list is a chapter list. I don't see any finance restrictions or database management issues that are not manageable. I only see a "we've always done it this way" restriction. I think since we've always had geographically restricted chapters that seems to be the only perceived "viable" structure.

From what I'm reading on this forum there is very strong support, and a pretty strong rationale, for elective chapter membership. My question is, if the discussion was supposed to be limited to fine tuning of chapter boundaries why wasn't that stated up front?

Again, I apologize for this less than positive posting. But if we are serious about attracting more members and increasing activity, making a few chapter boundary changes ought not to be the biggest change we are willing to make.

Glenn people can switch chapters, it involves some paperwork, I am not sure what, but it is my understanding it can be done. Some chapters are so sparse and geography so vast, shipping a competition piece is a must. Let's walk a mile in the Australian New Zealand chapter.

The only difference it makes is chapters are funded by its members and members are required to compete in their chapter for competitions. Otherwise you can go where you want. Another thing to consider is with increases territory and membership comes increased funding and rebates for educational meetings. Chapters also get a bigger pool of members to draw from for chapter leadership, for example if your chapter had 2 primary people doing 90% of the work, it might now get 4 or 6 people do the work. It's really a win win. There are more changes coming but I believe it is felt that the map has be done first and it seems to ruffle the most feathers.


Also you have to consider it may be a good idea, but it may take a long time to change based on our structure, large organization can move on a dime.
 
If you take the competition out of a group's activities you are cutting their interactions by a third. And since no chapter has 100% attendance, actually more like a half. So Glenn's point about being able to choose makes more sense in that respect.

Over time, this will be a lot like school consolidations; there will come a time when most folks won't even remember what it was like before. But if we lose even one member over this, it is too much.
 
Moving from one chapter to another has always been possible. The reason I know this is that Bob Shirk, whose shop was in Shippensburg PA asked to be moved to National Capital Chapter, as it is an easier drive from Shippensburg to the DC area than it was to go to Pittsburgh, his "assigned" chapter. It wasn't that big a deal then, so I can't imagine it would be that big a deal now.
 
Moving from one chapter to another has always been possible.


Well when I first signed up (living only a mile or two inside of Ohio) it was a BIG DEAL. I wanted to be part of Michigan and went back and forth and back and forth debating the reasons why I couldn't. Finally I was told I could request that Michigan "adopt me" if I could get some one from there to sponsor me.

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal, just let the member decide which chapter they want to sign up under for all of the reasons stated so far. The only reason I can see for chapters not wanted to let this happen is $$$$$.
 
Well when I first signed up (living only a mile or two inside of Ohio) it was a BIG DEAL. I wanted to be part of Michigan and went back and forth and back and forth debating the reasons why I couldn't. Finally I was told I could request that Michigan "adopt me" if I could get some one from there to sponsor me.

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal, just let the member decide which chapter they want to sign up under for all of the reasons stated so far. The only reason I can see for chapters not wanted to let this happen is $$$$$.
I think it has more to do with "systems" and practices.
Unfortunately, some of the "record management" changes that "might" have to happen might require some programming consultation, which can be expensive.
 
Cliff maybe I am wrong about the $$$ but I was thinking more along the line of "Head Count". Another words, don't the chapters receive compensation based on their membership? ( Kind of the same way schools don't like to have tardy or absent students because their monies from the state are based on attendance.) If that is the case I can see a chapter not wanting to let go of a potential member even though that member might not ever be able to attend a distant event.
 
Is this really a problem for many? Based on this new map, how many members find themselves in a new chapter, and will have more hours on the road or have close existing ties to their old chapter.

just wondering?

Karl
 
I'm sorry for causing such a kerfuffle. I just think everyone is still looking at this from the perspective of administrative continuity instead of thinking about it from the member's perspective. Unless the database is programmed to automatically identify the appropriate chapter based on the address (city) that is input, I don't know why it wouldn't accept a new or renewing member into any chapter. And if it is programmed to do the automatic computation, when the borders are modified it will still require a major reprogramming to recognize any members who are being moved into a different chapter. We are just rationalizing why we don't want to do what so many people are requesting. If it is a bad concept in terms of offering the member the best experience I can accept that. But that's not what I'm hearing. If we're going to stick with border defined chapter areas at least put the activity hub for the chapter in the center. Having a 1000 mile wide chapter (North Central) with all of the activity taking place within 20 miles of the eastern edge makes no sense to me.

I'm going to give this a rest now. I think everyone knows where I stand and, even though I may not agree with the direction being taken, causing more trouble for the hard working people who are trying to keep us afloat does no one any good.

Thanks folks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top