Boundary Reorganization

[Robin Gentry MCPF]

John B and Cliff are both correct in the assumptions from what I have been told over the last few years. Some chapters do not want to give up members due to rebate money, and there is also a lot of coding involved with the database which cost a lot of money to do for one or two people.

But, changing of ones chapter can occur if both Chapters agree to the arrangement. The member needs to contact the chapter leadership who will then work with the CRC (chapter relations committee) and the National Board to make it happen. Now the one thing I will say is if a member in the middle of a chapter territory is asking to go with a chapter that is not geographically convenient or relevant I would not count on it happening, sorry!

Now with that being said. I would ask that we continue the discussion and let us see what is possible. The purpose of this is to get input from the members so we can better serve the members. The "not viable" comment is what I have also been told by others in the past but I just think we need to look at it from a different angle. So this is what is occurring. I have ask some questions and am waiting for some research to be done so we can best serve our members.

And just so everyone knows this has been discussed for over 1 year and a lot of arguing back and forth has occurred so this is not something anyone has just pulled out of the air. There have been other proposals that were shot down and there has been a lot of compromise between all those involved. The work everyone has done is GREATLY APPRECIATED so I hope they will not take any comments as personal attacks, they are not.

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

...Some chapters do not want to give up members due to rebate money, and there is also a lot of coding involved with the database which cost a lot of money to do for one or two people.

There must be a reason why a member would request to change chapters, whether it involves geography, good or bad relationships, or some other reason. To the extent that PPFA exists to serve its members, I believe the first priority ought to be the member's wants and needs. If the decision becomes a negotiation of rebate money between the chapters, then the member may feel disconnected and his/her interests may become secondary. I say the association's policies and actions should be formulated for best care of the members, not for distribution of chapter money, or for convenience, or for avoidance of administrative cost.

Interpersonal issues, such as competitive animosity or personality conflicts, may be common reasons for members to avoid attending their chapter's events, or to request a change of chapters, or to abandon the association. I think it would be better to accommodate a member's change request than to lose a member, regardless of how that affects the chapters.

That said, a member who wishes to change chapters needs to understand what that involves, and should not make such a request lightly. I guess there would have to be a limit to chapter-change requests; maybe once every three years or five years would be reasonable. It might also be reasonable to require a commitment from the member to actively participate in the new chapter, perhaps as a volunteer. Maybe it would be fair to revert the member back to the old chapter if he/she fails to participate in the new chapter or attend events.

To summarize, I believe a member's chapter-change request should stimulate more involvement of that member. He/she should not be a disconnected bystander, but should be directly involved in the decision-making process and also in the new chapter's activities.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

The most interest I have seen from people who wished they could change to another chapter is from members who's chapters were the least active, most recall the "No Free Ride" thread. Inactive chapter had competitions and other compliance issues were not being met for the chapter members. It should be clear the MAJOR reason to reduce the number of chapters, and increase the territory is so chapter that have been inactive are now paired with active chapters. In the face of change it might bring some security to know that you could move to another chapter, but I really think this will become the most minor of issues.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

Still, I think belonging to a chapter outside one's assigned chapter ought to be an easy choice for members without obligations attached. There will not be that many who will jump from one chapter to another.
Let's see what happens if members are allowed to make an easy switch. From there eventually the boundaries can be redrawn to create new chapters and to eliminate old ones.

 

[Glenn Renick]

For those who cringed when you saw my name pop up again, I'm keeping my promise and not commenting any more on chapter assignment

I just took another look at Randy's map and a couple things became clear. One of the two biggest membership gaps in the country runs right through the middle of the thousand mile wide proposed North Central area. There are members on both ends but absolutely no one through most of North and South Dakota. Almost all North and South Dakota members are right on the Minnesota Border and that strip has strong regional ties to the Twin Cities where most of the NC membership is concentrated. But there is a huge void (hundreds of miles where hardly anyone lives) until you reach the Montana/Wyoming border area. West of that there are members who live closer to Denver (where there is a noticeable member cluster) than to Minneapolis. I realize the Mountains & Plains area is quite large, but the member clusters on Randy's map show much more continuity for the people in Montana and Wyoming if they were to participate with people in Denver. It also looks like Mountains & Plains contains significant clusters in both Phoenix and Denver. Wouldn't it make more sense to divide Mountains @ Plains into a Phoenix centric chapter and a Denver centric chapter with Eastern Montana and Eastern Wyoming participating there?

If there is a concern that splitting Phoenix and Denver takes us backwards in terms of consolidating to a smaller number of chapters, I would propose merging the Wisconsin and North Central Chapters. These chapters already work closely together and conduct joint activities, Milwaukee and even Chicago are not unmanageable drives for Minnesota members and, if the western half of North Central is assigned to a Northern Mountain & Plains area, a merger of Wisconsin and North Central still produces a smaller geographic size area than several other chapters. Here's an illustration of that concept:



I recognize that I do not have knowledge of the kind of activities in the Mountains & Plains area but I believe the North Central/Wisconsin merger would be extremely beneficial to the members in both chapters.

One additional note: Because of the distances involved, our chapter has always favored having longer events (1 and 2 day events with multiple instructional sessions and activities) that are held in the spring and fall rather than trying to pull people together for monthly meetings. We have been relatively successful in doing this. I believe this is the only way to support a widely dispersed membership when your chapter is geographically larger than the countries of France and Spain combined.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

For those who cringed when you saw my name pop up again, I'm keeping my promise and not commenting any more on chapter assignment

I just took another look at Randy's map and a couple things became clear. One of the two biggest membership gaps in the country runs right through the middle of the thousand mile wide proposed North Central area. There are members on both ends but absolutely no one through most of North and South Dakota. Almost all North and South Dakota members are right on the Minnesota Border and that strip has strong regional ties to the Twin Cities where most of the NC membership is concentrated. But there is a huge void (hundreds of miles where hardly anyone lives) until you reach the Montana/Wyoming border area. West of that there are members who live closer to Denver (where there is a noticeable member cluster) than to Minneapolis. I realize the Mountains & Plains area is quite large, but the member clusters on Randy's map show much more continuity for the people in Montana and Wyoming if they were to participate with people in Denver. It also looks like Mountains & Plains contains significant clusters in both Phoenix and Denver. Wouldn't it make more sense to divide Mountains @ Plains into a Phoenix centric chapter and a Denver centric chapter with Eastern Montana and Eastern Wyoming participating there?

If there is a concern that splitting Phoenix and Denver takes us backwards in terms of consolidating to a smaller number of chapters, I would propose merging the Wisconsin and North Central Chapters. These chapters already work closely together and conduct joint activities, Milwaukee and even Chicago are not unmanageable drives for Minnesota members and, if the western half of North Central is assigned to a Northern Mountain & Plains area, a merger of Wisconsin and North Central still produces a smaller geographic size area than several other chapters. Here's an illustration of that concept:

View attachment 825

I recognize that I do not have knowledge of the kind of activities in the Mountains & Plains area but I believe the North Central/Wisconsin merger would be extremely beneficial to the members in both chapters.

One additional note: Because of the distances involved, our chapter has always favored having longer events (1 and 2 day events with multiple instructional sessions and activities) that are held in the spring and fall rather than trying to pull people together for monthly meetings. We have been relatively successful in doing this. I believe this is the only way to support a widely dispersed membership when your chapter is geographically larger than the countries of France and Spain combined.

I think that's a great idea. Of course, my opinion isn't worth much.

From the beginning I commented that we would wind up with two kinds of chapters; what I called dense and dispersed. My expectation all along was that the two kinds of chapters would evolve into different kinds of meetings. This was one of the reasons I suggested changing the "two meeting minimum" per year requirement to 2 days of meetings per year.

It might be that that needs fine tuning as well. Maybe a particularly dispersed chapter has one "Full membership meeting" and multiple "sub-group" meetings. There are lot's of possibilities.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

just to play devil's advocate, one prime reason I don't see a need to merge Wisc and Minn, is both have average functioning chapters. Wisc picks up part of the old Heartland Chapter which has decent membership but no leadership. While Minnesota takes on North and South Dakota which looks vast, there is only one or two members, one of which would be closer to Cascade Chapter.

I do question the fiscal soundness of the multi chapter meetings, from what I have seen most are money pits, unless your able to piggy back on a vendor event. Smaller cheaper and hyper local meeting are probably the future.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

just to play devil's advocate, one prime reason I don't see a need to merge Wisc and Minn, is both have average functioning chapters. Wisc picks up part of the old Heartland Chapter which has decent membership but no leadership. While Minnesota takes on North and South Dakota which looks vast, there is only one or two members, one of which would be closer to Cascade Chapter.

I do question the fiscal soundness of the multi chapter meetings, from what I have seen most are money pits, unless your able to piggy back on a vendor event. Smaller cheaper and hyper local meeting are probably the future.

Interesting. We in NE have three half to one day events per year and don't have money problems.

 

[Glenn Renick]

just to play devil's advocate, one prime reason I don't see a need to merge Wisc and Minn, is both have average functioning chapters. Wisc picks up part of the old Heartland Chapter which has decent membership but no leadership. While Minnesota takes on North and South Dakota which looks vast, there is only one or two members, one of which would be closer to Cascade Chapter.

I do question the fiscal soundness of the multi chapter meetings, from what I have seen most are money pits, unless your able to piggy back on a vendor event. Smaller cheaper and hyper local meeting are probably the future.

The reason for suggesting the NC/Wisc merger is that for the last 2 years we've been successfully doing so much together. I don't think we want to be two "average functioning" chapters, we want to combine our active leadership and resources to have a great functioning chapter. I think it would be nice to ask the leadership from both chapters to weigh in on this. It seems like it would make sense to organize in a way that is consistent with what we are already trying to do.

By the way, Minnesota is not "picking up" North and South Dakota. They have always been part of the North Central Chapter. What we are picking up is Iowa, which makes perfect sense, and Montana and Wyoming which means those people are 900-1000 miles from where we hold our events.

Now back to my old drumbeat. None of this would matter at all if chapters were just recognized by a hub location instead of a vast territory, and members were allowed to belong to the most convenient chapter. No boundaries would be necessary, just like the VFW, Rotary, Boy Scouts, Lions Club, Chamber of Commerce, and a thousand other chapterized organizations don't have fixed boundaries. Certainly someone in our membership must have used Microsoft Access in a previous life enough to overcome the membership list and database issue. I still think we are so focused on the few obstacles to this approach that we can't see the vast number of problems it will solve and advantages it will provide. Do I hear somone saying "but we've always done it this way"?

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

There is a wide range of charges for chapter events. If the fee isn't enough to cover expenses, even with a sponsor you can lose money.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

It's only a problem if you spend money you don't have and I am not implying that. I don't know if they have been ideally revenue neutral either. The big difference between the East Coast and Mid West is the membership density and geographic distance. East coast you have to travel 75 miles one way to a meeting but if you go from Minneapolis to Madison your looking at a 250 mile trip one way, with 50% less members.

I am going to the Nelson's Seminar, that will be a 470 mile round trip and that is in one state. Sarah and Julie are going to Nelson's from Milwaukee up around Lake Michigan and that will be a almost 900 mile round trip.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

Now back to my old drumbeat. None of this would matter at all if chapters were just recognized by a hub location instead of a vast territory, and members were allowed to belong to the most convenient chapter. No boundaries would be necessary, just like the VFW, Rotary, Boy Scouts, Lions Club, Chamber of Commerce, and a thousand other chapterized organizations don't have fixed boundaries. Certainly someone in our membership must have used Microsoft Access in a previous life enough to overcome the membership list and database issue. I still think we are so focused on the few obstacles to this approach that we can't see the vast number of problems it will solve and advantages it will provide. Do I hear somone saying "but we've always done it this way"?

The only area it makes a difference is if you enter a competition and where the frame goes, that is a separate can of worms. There is a process for changing chapters, so what is the issue?

 

[Jim Miller MCPF GCF]

I am going to the Nelson's Seminar, that will be a 470 mile round trip and that is in one state. Sarah and Julie are going to Nelson's from Milwaukee up around Lake Michigan and that will be a almost 900 mile round trip.

For Gail and me, it will be a 952 mile round trip, and we're picking up a fellow Ohio member along the way. I'm sure the Nelson's folks are working to make it worth every minute of the driving time.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

You find a better or nicer company than Nelson's!

 

[John Ranes II CPF GCF]

For Gail and me, it will be a 952 mile round trip, and we're picking up a fellow Ohio member along the way...

Jim, I know that you will have a great time at this joint vendor / PPFA event but I know that you also recognize that you are the exception to the rule as a number of us are...

Indeed Sarah and I drove the 540 mile round trip to the MN/WI/IA show in 2012 but honestly that was a one time deal and there was also a Gift Show going on at the same time. Heck I made that trip MONTHLY back in the 1980's when I was VP of the Upper Midwest PPFA Chapter. :shocked:

The truth is that most member and non-members that we are attempting to draw honestly won't travel much more than 60-115 miles to an event - Heck many don't show up to a powerful event when it's in their own backyard! :sorrow:

Glen's maps and comments are off target in some ways but spot on in others - I will elaborate when I have more time. But the point is that the structure needs to recognize poplulation density, and natural mental boundaries that we as human beings create - Like West Coast people never wanted to recognize that a world exists East of the Rockies.... (except Rob Markoff) Jesting of course, but I think you get my point. In general Big City framers will not journey long distances for programs. Chicago bears this out and (sorry Glen) so does the Twin Cities.

I think most of us recognize that the new lines drawn will not please everyone.

I also think that there is some merit in a member shop that is more than 700 miles from a Chapter Core City having the ability to DECLARE a chapter.

more later...(off to the shop)

John

John

 

[Glenn Renick]

The only area it makes a difference is if you enter a competition and where the frame goes, that is a separate can of worms. There is a process for changing chapters, so what is the issue?

I'm sure everyone is looking at this through their own lens. Maybe we, and I'm including the North Central board members as well as me (by the way, where are you guys in this discussion?), have a different perspective because our hub is so far from the center of our boundaries that 98.2% of the chapter area lies to the west and only 1.8% lies between our density center and the Wisconsin Chapter border. If you draw a 50 mile circle around our focal point it extends 30 miles into the Wisconsin chapter. There are frame shops in that area, and none of them belong to PPFA. While there may be a technical mechanism for them to join PPFA, and then get switched to the chapter that is near their shop, it just doesn't seem logical to work that way. The issue isn't whether there is a process for a member to change chapters after they join as much as I'm looking for an effective way for chapters, any chapter, to attract new members who would find it convenient to work with us rather than finding themselves on the outskirts of a chapter that they cannot relate to. Ask George Strange about this. He isn't just in another US chapter from where he would be logically supported, he is in another country. Yet his shortest drive for any PPFA activity is to Minneapolis.

I'm looking for ways to open up our organization by tearing down membership obstacles. I still think this is more about how we've always done things... and our pride. If there are valid reasons for absolute borders that are related to the best way to serve our members, then by all means we should have them. But if they exist because 1) we've always operated with borders and our system is set up that way, 2) our database would have to be reprogrammed if, on the membership application, we gave members the option to choose a chapter, 3) a chapter may resent losing $25 a year if someone in their arbitrarily identified territory finds it more accessible to work with a different chapter, 4) there aren't that many (current) members who would benefit from choosing a chapter other than where we put them, 5) even if we thought hub based chapters are a good idea it's too hard to manage, or whatever operational difficulty is the issue, then I think we are being short sighted at the expense of our organization and individual members, both existing and prospective framers we need to regrow our association. So far in this discussion I haven't heard any reasons why drawing fixed borders is better for our members than having hub based chapters. The reasons all seem to focus on perceived "viability", working within an operational comfort zone, and fear of change.

I know I've been talking a lot on this issue. And just talking won't accomplish anything. If one of the significant barriers to open boundaries is a limitation with the current database and how it functions, I am willing to volunteer to work on this issue. While I am more experienced at building complex spreadsheets, I do have some database experience. I would hate to see us perceive beneficial changes as not being viable because we thought our existing technology could not accommodate a need for change and updating it would be too costly. Perhaps this organization is a lot more complex than I think it is, but I believe we might be able to handle a database issue using existing resources. But if that is not the case, I am willing to be part of the solution.

 

[James R Cook GCF]

You are correct on your observation. I have heard two different stories about Ohio having two chapters at one time. Some say that there were two official PPFA chapters (North & South).
Another old timer, said that the Columbus area had their own social/business group but not really a true PPFA chapter. One way or the other, that is in the past. Now for the future.

I have just found a list (13 pages) of what seems to be picture framers in the State of Ohio. It seems to have been updated October of 2011. It could help us target potential members
from ALL of Ohio. What if we were to e-mail or snail mail a copy to each member of the Ohio chapter for review and up date. Over the last several years I am sure that some have gone out of business or changed hands - with updated info from each members area we could encourage more growth. As for statewide growth, just in the NW section of Ohio, I am amazed at the number of frame shops that exist. They can be found when you use yellowpages.com and ask for picture framers. We could add these statewide new prospects to the list. Each member then has a share of the future.

Does any one think this might be a good idea? You don't have to be an Ohio member to give feed back.

John

You asked: I am adamantly opposed to dissolving the Northern Ohio Chapter.

When we did have meetings in Northeast Ohio we drew 12-20 attendees every meeting some PPFA members and some not. Ohio chapter problem was not the members it was the leadership.

I believe Northern Ohio chapter now with new leadership can make all the difference in the Ohio Chapter. Again the past weakness in the Northern ohio chapter has not been in its members but in its leadership. Who over the past two years did not have the time to devote in leading it in a solid direction. I think the new leadership can do that. It has my solid support. (I know this for a fact, I am the Past President)

They are planning meetings as we speak. I Believe that Ohio has enough supporting members to justifiy a Ohio Chapter. I have talked to most of our current and past Ohio Members. They are willing to come to meetings. If the leadership will schedule them and put them in areas they can come to on days they have free. Four meetings a year, two in the Northeast area, one north west area, one around south west area. I believe that would be a make a huge difference In the Ohio Chapter. Implimentation of this I believe would put them back in the exposure to all Ohio members it needs.

I had reservations in posting this but it really needed to be said.

 

[Mike Kadlec]

Hello all of you from the international framing community! Nice to hear from some that are even oceans away.

I would just like to reply to a couple light comments earlier.

In reference to members traveling to event John Ranes said:
Heck I made that trip (WI to MN and back)MONTHLY back in the 1980's when I was VP of the Upper Midwest PPFA Chapter.
When gas was 99 cents a gallon it made that a lot easier. It was cheaper to fly that trip then than it is now to drive it at 4 bucks/gallon. Sheesh, dang oil companies.

About the rebate money from chapter members Robin's comment was:
Some chapters do not want to give up members due to rebate money
If $25 is creating that much of an issue then there is a much bigger or different problem than chapter boundaries.

On the changing chapters issue Randy stated:
There is a process for changing chapters,
Why does there have to be.. 'a process'..for this? Why can't it be easy? I agree with Kai.
I think belonging to a chapter outside one's assigned chapter ought to be an easy choice for members without obligations attached.
There always has to be a 'process' that bogs down progress. Let's cut that out. Just Git-R-Done!

 

[Robin Gentry MCPF]

Okay, I have been away for a couple days, boy have you all been busy!

Great discussion going on. I will address a couple issues:

$25 rebate-yes there is much more going on than just the $25 rebate. Much is the fact that the events are not being run in a business sense, they are not being looked at as needing to get members involved and attending. The planning is in many cases occurring at the last minute, the chapters are not charging for events because they feel it will cause members to stay away if they have to pay to attend. These events are very nice events, and have great educational opportunities. Why would the members not attend and expect to pay a fee to attend an educational event. If you take a class with your local community college or a local association which offers an event, do you expect to pay? I do. Members will not travel. Several chapters have moved events around and contacted members in the area, they do not attend. So the ones traveling are the chapter leaders. Members need to be involved. If you can figure out how to make this occur, please share

Chapter boundaries- yes ideally chapters would be in every large population area. This does not occur because we do not have members willing to step in and lead. Just because the boundaries are currently being expanded it does not mean the leadership will remain the same. The hope would be you, the members, would see good leadership in the chapter and want to become involved in your area. One chapter could have 2-3 or more hubs of leadership which can plan events in the local area. These hubs of leadership would ALL work together as one group (the chapter) to serve the members.

Chapter choice-questions are being ask of how certain things work (the database) to see what can be done in this area.

We have areas which have leadership that are able to have enough members involved to help put on great events and continue to gain members. The areas which are being dissolved are areas which PPFA has tried to help over the last 3-5 years and could not get responses from the current leaders or when we did it was yes I am working on that and there has not been follow through. There have been areas where members have ask to help and the leadership would not respond to the members. So how do you think that made the members feel? They were willing to help and the leaders at that time would not respond. These are some of the Problems we have ran into over the last 3-5 years, some longer than that. But I can tell you I have personally called the presidents and some of the other board members over the last 3-5 years to see what can be done to help or find out what is going on in the chapter only to be told we are working on this or that and then nothing materializes. I can not personally plan events for other chapters! I can also state those I have talked to I have made suggestions on the planning of events, timelines, how to promo, who to ask, where to find things, non of it helped or was followed up on by the chapter leaders.

So I am sorry the map areas are being expanded, what I would ask is the leaders in the new areas involve the leaders from the area which were disbanded and involve new members in the areas of high population density to develop smaller groups which will serve the members in a better capacity. Your chapter boards are not limited to a President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer. You can add board members at large, competition chairs, event coordinators, newsletter editors, email editors, data base manager, what ever you need to make your chapter function and involve members to make the chapter effective. If you look at the most successful chapters many of them have expanded boards. Those that are not so successful do not. Just my two cents and rant. I hope it some way it helps you to understand were the National Board is coming from.

 

[John Ranes II CPF GCF]

.,..Chapter boundaries- yes ideally chapters would be in every large population area. This does not occur because we do not have members willing to step in and lead.

Just because the boundaries are currently being expanded it does not mean the leadership will remain the same.

Exactly Robin... The likelyhood of leadership within a Chapter and membership draw to that Chapter coming from the Population Centers is great, even if it doesn't exist currently. Hence the planning of those boundaries really needs to take in the future and not just who is active in leadership today.

...So I am sorry the map areas are being expanded, what I would ask is the leaders in the new areas involve the leaders from the area which were disbanded and involve new members in the areas of high population density to develop smaller groups which will serve the members in a better capacity...

I'm a bit confused....Are these boundaries now set in stone by the National Board or are we having a discussion so that they can be best desgined for the future?

John