Proposed Amendments to PAEP Bylaws

[EricBuncher]

An Open Letter to Members of the Pennsylvania Association of Environmental Professionals:

The purpose for this correspondence is to address concerns raised by an e-mail distributed to the PAEP membership announcing that a special meeting will be held in each section for the purpose of voting on proposed amendments to the by-laws. From reading these proposed by-law revisions it appears that some of the changes proposed make sense (ex. allowing more flexibility in the definition of a meeting, and allowing for e-mail voting), because they reflect changes in modern communications technology that will allow PAEP to conduct its affairs more efficiently and cost effectively. However we the undersigned disagree with the proposed amendment to extend Board terms from two to three years. Our purpose for opposing the proposal to extend Board terms from two to three years are as follows:

1. There are definite benefits to empowering the membership with the opportunity to replace approximately half the board on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious benefit of allowing the membership to replace poor leadership on an annual basis, having an annual election engages the membership community and reminds them every year that they have a responsibility to contribute, if only with the selection of the organization’s leadership.

2. Experience has shown that some past Board members started out motivated, and then for various reasons found themselves unable or unwilling to continue participating at a level that fulfills their obligation to serve the membership. This is more likely to occur with longer terms.

3. The by-law amendment proposal suggests that the election of officers is an onerous task, and that there is a need for greater continuity in leadership. To the contrary, we believe that the annual election process is an opportunity to solicit new membership participation, exchange ideas (via the candidate’s platform statement), and introduce the membership to prospective new leaders. Regarding the need for continuity, it is fair to conclude that Board members who demonstrate a willingness and ability to lead PAEP toward continued success can be re-elected and have a total of 4 years to accomplish their goals. If four years is not sufficient time to achieve one’s objectives, after one year of absence a former two-term Board member is eligible to run for additional terms. Another option is to continue to support the organization through participation in the many committee and section volunteer activities available.

We also ask that you consider rejecting the current proposal to amend Section C of By-Law 3: Directors, because the proposed amendment requires that future nominations must be reviewed and approved by the Board prior to being included on the ballot. The current by-law only requires that Board nominees be members of the Association in good standing. This proposed amendment makes the acceptance of Board nominations an exclusive responsibility of the board, instead of a more inclusive and democratic process subject only to the needs and wishes of the majority of the membership.

We request that you faithfully consider our concerns and vote against these proposed bylaw amendments.

The Undersigned: Eric Buncher, former PAEP President
Mark Fedosick, former PAEP President
Bill Zemaitis, former PAEP President
Robert Hosking, former PAEP Conference Chair
Tim Tuttle, former PAEP Conference Chair

[JoeMusil]

Since we have 9 Board Members, I would be in favor of a 3/3/3 election process where we elect three Board Members each year to serve a three-year term. This makes more sense to me than electing 4 people one year and 5 the next.

Joseph Musil
Past PAEP Board Member

[DuanePeters]

The 3/3/3 idea is intriguing. Do you have any ideas on how to achieve this without extending or shorting the term length of existing Board members? Also, if a member of the Board steps down, do we run a special election for someone to finish out the existing term or should the position remain vacant until the next election cycle to keep the 3/3/3 dynamic? Interesting idea Joe.

[JoeMusil]

Lets see in the fall of 2009 we are about to elect 4 board members for a two year term (2010/11). I think we would have to extend three of those to make the first groups of three (2010/11/12). The next year (2010) we would normally elect 5 board members for a two year term (2011/12). Instead, we elect 3 of those to a new three year term (2011/12/13) and elect two of them for a one year term (2011). In the fall of 2011 we elect three board members to serve a three year term (2012/13/14). Beginning with the fall of 2012 elections we are on a three year cycle. We base the initial terms on total number of votes. i.e. the three highest votes this year get the extended three year term. I think those numbers work out. Regarding the replacement of board members it is the same as we currently do it, the current board assigns a replacement to fill the remaining term. If it's more than two years we could hold a special election.

[EricBuncher]

Board term length was never an issue in the 24 years of PAEP's existence . It is not an issue now. From my personal experience on the board, two years is more than enough time to get things done. The whole point of two year terms and the two term limit in the bylaws is to get new people with new ideas and fresh goals onto the Board. New people with new ideas and fresh goals have been good for the Board. Term length should not be changed.

[DuanePeters]

A great point Eric. That is the benefit of having this forum. While this issue may or may not be an important topic with the membership, it is great that we can discuss such. It is an opportunity for someone who has something to share to do so easily without waiting for a Section Event or the Annual Conference. We can also discuss suggestions as a group easily. I am excited to see what comes out of the message board in the coming months.