Boundary Reorganization

[Randy Parrish CPF]

Just a couple of other thoughts (I keep saying that, don't I :smile.

It certainly seems to be a benefit to pick up the additional membership subsidies when chapters gain members from consolidation. Along with that is (or should be) a responsibility to welcome and support those members and not just take the money for "doing the same thing". In the case where the new members are impossibly far away (for our east coast friends, Billings, MT to Minneapolis is exactly the same distance as New York City to Atlanta) some creative solutions are going to be necessary. Holding gathering type events and meetings that a significant number of remote members will never be able to attend is not fair when their money is paying for them. Trying to hold events on both sides of a 1000 mile wide chapter, with some distances reaching 1300 miles, especially when no one lives in the middle half of the territory, might require operating as two distant but cooperating chapters under the leadership of one board. Based on her response, this might be the strategy Robin has in mind.

Again using Billings as the focal point of the members in eastern Montana/Wyoming, the distance to Minneapolis/St. Paul, where the North Country Chapter is currently based, is 850 miles. Denver, which appears on Randy's map to have a membership concentration close to the size of the twin cities, is 550 miles away. I'm not sure if saving 300 miles is significant when we are dealing with these kinds of distances. But it still seems more logical to me to put the eastern half of Montana, and certainly NE Wyoming, in the same chapter as Denver. At least it would be within a one-day drive instead of two. On the other hand it would extend the Mountains & Plains even more than it's currently planned massive size. I suppose the logic of this would depend on how much activity would take place in or around Denver. I'd encourage at least taking another look at the best affiliation for the folks in Wyoming.

By the way, for those who are proud of their 2 hour drive each way to go to a meeting, a Delta Airlines non-stop flight Billings to Minneapolis is 2 hours gate-to-gate time. :shocked:

Old models will likely not work, IMO, however if framers in Billings wanted to do a event on their own and nothing says only they can come, all are welcome of course, or have a joint meeting with another chapter they could organize with the help and funding of the chapter leaders, it might not be a huge event it might be just the right size, if a chapter as small as Texas Gulf Coast can have group of 10 or 12 meet and do a seminar on french matting, there is nothing stopping a smaller group doing a something under the North Central "UMBRELLA". It would also help make chapter minimum goals for meetings. We are going to have to look at being a bit more humble with our meeting expectations, they need to be "Goldilocks meetings". I would certainly do whatever it takes to help the members there have a meeting.

 

[James R Cook GCF]

Any constructive comments are welcome. This discussion is open until the 20th. After that it will be closed. So now is the time to comment. After the 20th the boundaries will be reassessed and tweaks made if needed. Currently nothing has been finalized.

The National Board and the CRC opened this discussion to the membership for input. It would be nice to hear from more members as to the concerns they may have. Also from members who have previously been unaffiliated with a chapter or who have been in chapters which are inactive. If any of you are in contact with any members please ask them to join the discussion. If they do not want to jump on the forum publicly the are welcome to message, email or phone me privately. I included contact information in the letter.

So asking for a vote by the members of each chapter affected is something that something that is not going to happen?

 

[Mike Drury MCPF]

Ok, I cry Uncle. Here we go; James, you will have to vote at the chapter level with your chapter's board. You should be in contact with your chapter's President to see if such an election on this topic is going to take place. Once it does, your chapter's elected board will pass the results on to the CRC and National Board for consideration as we try to make positive changes to "OUR" PPFA. That is the only "vote" you will get. You are welcome to start adding positive, constructive ideas to this topic, via this forum, which are being heard loud and clear by those that will make the final vote which has NOT been made yet.

 

[Craig Sterling]

Hi Robin,

Are the chapter boundaries formed by geography or by concentration of member shops? Is there a minimum number of members required for a chapter? Would it not benefit membership to divide some of the largest chapters (land mass) so that members would not have to travel by air for a chapter event? My thoughts are that some chapter boundaries are simply too vast for members to regularly travel to events or to faithfully serve as a volunteer.

It would be interesting to look at the number of custom picture framers & suppliers in the larger geographic chapters to determine the percent of shops vs. member shops. Membership might be lower than it could be simply because folks don't see a "local" benefit when the chapter boundaries are so vast.

From your letter it seems that the impetus for changing chapter boundaries is to facilitate the annual framing competition by eliminating the mailbox competition. While that is a good reason to look carefully at the boundaries, perhaps member participation and travel could also be addressed.

On a personal note, as I look at the map, the NCC boundaries have not changed. Is that correct?

Thanks for the discussion...

Craig Sterling, CPF
National Capital Chapter

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

Hi Robin,

Are the chapter boundaries formed by geography or by concentration of member shops? Is there a minimum number of members required for a chapter? Would it not benefit membership to divide some of the largest chapters (land mass) so that members would not have to travel by air for a chapter event? My thoughts are that some chapter boundaries are simply too vast for members to regularly travel to events or to faithfully serve as a volunteer.

It would be interesting to look at the number of custom picture framers & suppliers in the larger geographic chapters to determine the percent of shops vs. member shops. Membership might be lower than it could be simply because folks don't see a "local" benefit when the chapter boundaries are so vast.

From your letter it seems that the impetus for changing chapter boundaries is to facilitate the annual framing competition by eliminating the mailbox competition. While that is a good reason to look carefully at the boundaries, perhaps member participation and travel could also be addressed.

On a personal note, as I look at the map, the NCC boundaries have not changed. Is that correct?

Thanks for the discussion...

Craig Sterling, CPF
National Capital Chapter

I would say the impetus is to group under-performing chapters with other chapters in the hope of creating critical mass of members so there can be sufficient leadership and energy in a chapter. I think anything concerning the competition was more of a "while we're at it" thinking.

There hasn't been a good available analysis of the framing market for some time, but my best estimate is that PPFA has about 10% of the US independent shops as members. Higher percentages seem to be in higher population dense areas like New England. My first guess was that was because of easier access to chapter meetings, but when you look at participation even in those areas, that can't be the reason. My current guess is that members (chapter leaders mostly) are the recruitment force for the organization, so it follows that they would "recruit" more members when they see and talk to them more often due to density.

 

[Ellen Collins MCPF]

On a personal note, as I look at the map, the NCC boundaries have not changed. Is that correct?

Thanks for the discussion...

Craig Sterling, CPF
National Capital Chapter

pssst: Look at eastern West Virginia. We would be adding Berkeley and Jefferson Counties. Also, it looked like the York, PA area. All of these are pretty much far suburban Baltimore DC Metro area any more.

 

[Robin Gentry MCPF]

Hi Craig,

Thank you for the questions. Cliff and Ellen have addressed a couple of them already.

This is not strictly for Competition. This is to do our best to be sure our members are being contacted by someone other than National and are invited - personally - to PPFA events. It has always been my thought that mailbox members and members in inactive chapters are not as well informed concerning events and opportunities (Member Advantage Program, Competition, Certification, Education, Framers Corner, etc...) because they do not get the personal touch members in active chapters get. I have spoken with people on the National Board, the CRC, and there are others that feel the same way. While National does a wonderful job at sending out eblasts with this information it does not always reach the members as we have recently found out. Many members accidentally unsubscribed from the PPFA National email list. And by law they are not allowed to send them any more email even to be sure this is what they want. Several of our membership committee have gone through the list and let chapters know who these members are and ask them to personally contact the member to be sure this is what they wanted. Well guess what it was an accident and they ask to be resubscribed. This is just one example there are others.

The National Capital Chapter has added a few members.

I would love to have the analysis of shops vs member shops but unfortunately we do not currently have this data available. While I agree the large areas can pose a problem I feel if we look at our chapters and identify the areas where there are a concentration of framers we can reach out to them and develop leadership in that area. As Randy stated earlier there is no reason we can not have small meetings throughout the chapter organized by a volunteer in that area. It may be as simple as calling the 5-6 shops in your area and saying "hey lets go get some coffee and talk". This can start the ball rolling and you may find out that some of them would like to have an event locally. This can then develop over time and eventually when enough members are participating on a regular basis the area may break off on its own. But I also agree with Jim Miller's comment that many of the local shops do not want to have chapter meetings because they are afraid to talk to the competition, which personally I think is silly but to each his own. There are members that have other reasons for being a PPFA member. Everyone has to make the decision on their own. So do I think the large area is going to deter someone from joining. No I do not. I think there are other benefits to belonging to a chapter and to PPFA.

Ultimately it falls to us the PPFA to ask questions and invite people into the organization. Invite members and non-members to events, and to meetings. Introduce them to the benefits PPFA has to offer and then it is up to them to make the decision.

After all the rambling, I think expanding the boundaries to include all members can help to grow the organization. We as CL need to think about different ways to serve these members and different aspects of a meeting. Not all meetings need to be face to face. We need to consider webinars, teleconferences, skype meetings, and I am sure there are others I am not aware of.

Hope this makes some sense and helps.

Robin

 

[James R Cook GCF]

Ok, I cry Uncle. Here we go; James, [HL]you will have to vote at the chapter level with your chapter's board[/HL]. [HL]You should be in contact with your chapter's President to see if such an election on this topic is going to take place[/HL]. Once it does, your chapter's elected board will pass the results on to the CRC and National Board for consideration as we try to make positive changes to "OUR" PPFA. That is the only "vote" you will get. You are welcome to start adding positive, constructive ideas to this topic, via this forum, which are being heard loud and clear by those that will make the final vote which has NOT been made yet.

I am only asking questions.
When was this info sent out to all Presidents or to chapter members about having an election about boarders? I must admit I don't recall seeing it. Please bear with me. I want to see the members severed as much as everyone on the National board.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

I am only asking questions.
When was this info sent out to all Presidents or to chapter members about having an election about boarders? I must admit I don't recall seeing it. Please bear with me. I want to see the members severed as much as everyone on the National board.

It was first posted on the Chapter Leader Exchange 12/13/13 an email from Elaine went out the same day and again on the 12/16/13

 

[John Heltman]

Jim, Until this evening, I have had no information regarding the local chapters voting on this reorganization plan. I am very sorry that it was presented in a way that may have indicated I had knowledge of this opportunity. Now, as for the dates of 12/12/13 and 12/16/13 (listed below). I was not given full access to the Leaders Exchange until shortly before entering the office of president on 4/1/14. I assume that the e-mails referred to, in Randy's post, were sent to the person listed as president of the Ohio Chapter at that time. Enough said?

I will be in contact tonight or tomorrow, with the national leaders, seeking advise as to how to best offer this opportunity to the membership of Ohio PPFA. As for the deadline, that is not my call - but will ask.

John

It was first posted on the Chapter Leader Exchange 12/13/13 an email from Elaine went out the same day and again on the 12/16/13

 

[Joe Weinbeck]

Jim, Until this evening, I have had no information regarding the local chapters voting on this reorganization plan. I am very sorry that it was presented in a way that may have indicated I had knowledge of this opportunity. Now, as for the dates of 12/12/13 and 12/16/13 (listed below). I was not given full access to the Leaders Exchange until shortly before entering the office of president on 4/1/14. I assume that the e-mails referred to, in Randy's post, were sent to the person listed as president of the Ohio Chapter at that time. Enough said?

I will be in contact tonight or tomorrow, with the national leaders, seeking advise as to how to best offer this opportunity to the membership of Ohio PPFA. As for the deadline, that is not my call - but will ask.

John

And me as a member did not know anything about the reorganization of boundaries until a few days ago - that sucks!!! IMO not a single member anywhere should NOW just be hearing about this since it has been happening since December - every single member should have a voice in the decision. That's what organizations are about - ALL MEMBERS not only leaders. The leaders are there to lead and to inform us but are not to make the decisions for us. Members should have a say in what happens especially when it is something this important.

I'm tired of this so I am finished commenting.

 

[David Waldmann]

Any constructive comments are welcome. This discussion is open until the 20th. After that it will be closed. So now is the time to comment. After the 20th the boundaries will be reassessed and tweaks made if needed.

Based on the response to this thread I would heartily recommend that the board reconsider its deadline. Clearly there has been a lack of communication between the board and the everyday member. No finger pointing, just a fact.

I am pretty confident that a majority of those affected will not know until after it happens. Some will be glad, some won't care and some will be quite upset. While you can't please all the people all the time, at least giving them a chance to voice their opinions is only fair. I feel that moving ahead with the current plan with the current level of awareness/feedback will most likely cause more damage than it's forecast to repair.

Those of us that are on a computer all day or at least every day, and are active in forums such as this may not be able to comprehend it, but there really are people out there that don't even know what a forum is. There are 997 users on the forum, a huge number of which are non-member guests. Approximately half of the users have not even visited the forum in over a year and half (a different half) have never posted. I don't have access to the stats (just the user list which can be sorted different ways), but I bet there are maybe 50 "active" users on the site - ones that regularly visit at least weekly. I can tell you that only about 100 have visited within the last month. My point is, while it's great to have this forum, it can't be counted on as a medium for association-wide communication.

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

The fact that any member is only recently learning of this plan is the best evidence that the current system is broken.

If the chapter leadership isn't the most effective vehicle for communicating information to the membership, then it just isn't working.

I know that if I were just learning about this plan, I would be asking questions of my chapter leaders.

But to suggest that this is somehow some top-down conspiracy by the board or staff to change things without the knowledge or consent of the membership is to ignore the facts.

There have been multiple communications to the chapter leaders & committee chairs, discussion on the chapter leaders exchange on this forum and at the chapter leaders conference, direct communications with all registered members, and now this thread. In most chapters, there has been considerable discussion about the plan. It has been evolving for months.

Each step of the way, the CRC has requested feedback and its members have offered to communicate personally with any member or leader. They are still open to constructive change to the plan. But doing nothing is not an option.

 

[Craig Sterling]

Robin,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the thoughtful comments of everyone here. I do agree with the poster that since there has been significant comment that perhaps postponing the vote would be in order.

Ellen,

Speaking of which, is our chapter planning on sending information about the boundary reorganization to members for comment or vote?

Thanks again!

Craig

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

Yes, this is an organization of members.
Yes, I believe in openness, participation of the membership, and due process.
(I have been the Don Quixote of the nomination/election process for five years and STILL believe it is grossly wrong and needs fixing!)

But, IMO this is NOT something that should be put to a vote.
People resist change. Change is scary. Most people don't have the time or inclination to understand the problem.
Doing NOTHING is not an option. Voting to NOT change is not an option.
We have to do something. The organization is not functioning well as a whole.

This has been talked about at the board level, the committee level, and at many chapters since last summer. Emails have gone out, it was discussed at CL, there isn't a lot more that could have been done to communicate with the members.

The board and CRC are trying to come up with the best first stab at this they can. They are asking for input and have already made many changes to the initial draft based on feedback. They ARE paying attention to this and all feedback, but someone has to pull the trigger and soon.

I don't believe there is any reason to delay. Analysis paralysis is very real and a prone condition in a membership organization.

 

[Ellen Collins MCPF]

This talk of votes concerns me. What would happen if Chapter A (a weak chapter) is scheduled to merge with Chapter B (a strong chapter).The plan is that merging with Chapter B will give ALL members in the combined area a chapter that will hold meetings, share information, have a competition worthy of the name.

Chapter A hasn't met the requirement of having 3 meetings a year. In fact, let's say that they haven't had a competition either. Chapter A members hear of the reorganization and say 'H-,no. We don't want to drive 800 miles to a meeting" and they all vote NO! What would we have then?

Chapter leaders have been notified. Some are interested and have been following the discussion. Others haven't. Emails have been sent. Chapter Leaders Conference discussed it.

This reorganization is not like an election, but more like the legislature redrawing the legislative districts in a state. (without all the political stuff, thank Heaven!) Input is sought, the suggestions are weighed and some are utilized. Then the legislature makes the final decision. And, like redistricting, the lines aren't permanent.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

This talk of votes concerns me. What would happen if Chapter A (a weak chapter) is scheduled to merge with Chapter B (a strong chapter).The plan is that merging with Chapter B will give ALL members in the combined area a chapter that will hold meetings, share information, have a competition worthy of the name.

Chapter A hasn't met the requirement of having 3 meetings a year. In fact, let's say that they haven't had a competition either. Chapter A members hear of the reorganization and say 'H-,no. We don't want to drive 800 miles to a meeting" and they all vote NO! What would we have then?

Chapter leaders have been notified. Some are interested and have been following the discussion. Others haven't. Emails have been sent. Chapter Leaders Conference discussed it.

This reorganization is not like an election, but more like the legislature redrawing the legislative districts in a state. (without all the political stuff, thank Heaven!) Input is sought, the suggestions are weighed and some are utilized. Then the legislature makes the final decision. And, like redistricting, the lines aren't permanent.

Exactly. I don't know where the idea of chapters voting came in?

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

It is my fault! At our chapter meeting we did vote on it. That is just my leadership style. Everyone knew that what we were voting on was what I as president would be recommending to the CRC...only that.

I posted that we had a vote in explaining why our chapter was supporting the plan, and we were off to the races. My intention was to make it clear that our whole chapter was involved in supporting the plan. I'm sorry if that post mislead anyone.

 

[Robin Gentry MCPF]

Honestly the board could have made the decision last year when the proposal was first set in motion. We felt the membership should be made aware of the upcoming changes so we have delayed making a final decision for many months to discuss changes and have input from our chapter leaders. The chapter leaders have been contacted and ask to participate to discuss with their board and members the upcoming changes. If they did not do this it just proves the point the system is not working.

The original proposal went to the National Board on July 13, 2013. The original proposal was much more radical than the current proposal. It wanted to do away with chapter totally. I, along with a few others, fought this change. We felt even though chapters were not properly functioning there are a percentage of our membership that enjoy and want chapter events. It was suggested we only have 10 areas in which we hold education events which are organized by a group that may or may not be familiar with the geography of an area. You think people are going to be upset at the distance the new area will cover, what would be the response to this plan?

The amended version of this proposal had the chapters down to 14. But with the input of the Chapter Leaders and the Committees that number has now risen to 18. And just so you are all aware the Competitions Board helped with this as they made a very good argument to keep some areas from being merged. Also when we looked at the compliance lists, the areas given the reprieves were actually functioning better than previously thought. These areas may not have huge member base but they are serving the majority of their members with meetings and events and they get people to come to them.

I tell you this to let you know no one on the National Board takes this lightly. We will be making changes to the chapter structures. If you have good reasons and the compliance and activity of and area warrants as second look before things are finalized you need to show the CRC and the National Board your facts. We know this is going to upset some people and others will care less but we need to make changes.

 

[Craig Sterling]

Sorry about the concern for voting. I haven't been able to give PPFA my full or even partial attention for several years. I do, and always have, valued the local chapter and the work of volunteers at all levels. PPFA has amazing talent and leadership. I'm sure this has been discussed, revised and vetted by the Board, the CRC, and others.

One comment from the above threads that I really liked was that we need to find new ways to have chapter meetings. I like the idea of pocket meetings as well as using webinars, Skype, etc. These suggestions would certainly change the way PPFA chapters have historically functioned. Some members will welcome the change and others will struggle. Although, how do we do refreshments over Skype? hahaha