Some Adjustments in Our Executive Director Search, Finances and Governance

Last month, in my eagerness to be able to say we had an executive director, I probably jumped the gun a little. Tight printing schedules to get information into staff before the holiday vacation and confidence in our new selection gave way to panic when that person turned down the offer because of circumstances entirely out of their control.

While I could make a correction online, it was too late to stop the presses regarding my comments about a new ED. Things seem to turn on a dime these days, and what is clear and good one day is gone the next. Two of our other top choices found other jobs and informed the Committee they were withdrawing their applications, and the in-person interview we had in late January with the last of our top four candidates did not pan out as we had hoped.

So, the Seach Committee has started taking applications for Round Two, and we already have six new candidates to review. Among them, at first glance, are some real winners. At this point, each of the Committee members has been charged with recruiting potential applicants from qualified people within their personal networks. We won’t stop until we get the right person for the job.

Currently, Susan Nash acts as interim executive director and does an excellent job. Bryan Haws, AAPG’s chief financial officer, handles Foundation functions, which are mainly financial at this time of year. Alan Wegener is working with Jeff Aldrich on any Datapages issues. Vicki Beighle is doing an outstanding job keeping up with administrative duties to keep AAPG functioning correctly. The staff is pitching in and filling in any gaps that need attention.

Hopefully, it will not be long before we see the “white smoke” coming from the Committee and the EC to let the members know we have a new executive director.

Please log in to read the full article

Last month, in my eagerness to be able to say we had an executive director, I probably jumped the gun a little. Tight printing schedules to get information into staff before the holiday vacation and confidence in our new selection gave way to panic when that person turned down the offer because of circumstances entirely out of their control.

While I could make a correction online, it was too late to stop the presses regarding my comments about a new ED. Things seem to turn on a dime these days, and what is clear and good one day is gone the next. Two of our other top choices found other jobs and informed the Committee they were withdrawing their applications, and the in-person interview we had in late January with the last of our top four candidates did not pan out as we had hoped.

So, the Seach Committee has started taking applications for Round Two, and we already have six new candidates to review. Among them, at first glance, are some real winners. At this point, each of the Committee members has been charged with recruiting potential applicants from qualified people within their personal networks. We won’t stop until we get the right person for the job.

Currently, Susan Nash acts as interim executive director and does an excellent job. Bryan Haws, AAPG’s chief financial officer, handles Foundation functions, which are mainly financial at this time of year. Alan Wegener is working with Jeff Aldrich on any Datapages issues. Vicki Beighle is doing an outstanding job keeping up with administrative duties to keep AAPG functioning correctly. The staff is pitching in and filling in any gaps that need attention.

Hopefully, it will not be long before we see the “white smoke” coming from the Committee and the EC to let the members know we have a new executive director.

Potential Changes to Financial Control

The purpose of this commentary for February is to let the membership know the progress we are making toward significant changes to the Bylaws to eliminate excess governance and procedures that use a lot of staff time and cost the Association money.

The first directive is to change the balance of power over financial control between the Executive Committee and the executive director of the Association. In the current set of Bylaws, the EC has complete control over the organization’s financial decisions. The executive director and CFO can suggest, but the EC has the final say on expenditure.

In the Search Committee’s efforts to find the right ED, the year-end, but optimal, bonus each year is now attached to performance metrics. This was not the case before this point and the ED’s bonuses have been arbitrarily chosen by the EC. A friend once told me about this situation this way: “The worst job in the world has massive responsibility and paltry authority. The best job in the world is not the opposite, but the one where authority matches responsibility.”

Several candidates for the job have pointed out this conflict. How can their bonus each year be merit-based on the financial success of the Association if the EC can override their key financial decisions? An example of this would be the EXPLORER’s new magazine format, undoubtedly saving costs over the old tabloid style. This change was proposed several years ago when the EXPLORER’s advertising income was sliding. The EC turned down the proposal because the tabloid format was more appealing to them, regardless of the fact that the magazine style would be cheaper to print and mail.

The Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the Society of Petroleum Engineers run their organizations entirely differently. At SPE, the executive director has the final say on expenditures the organization makes. That person is the CEO of the Society. At SEG, a finance committee determines how money is spent. If someone on the Board has a project they would like to see funded, it must go through the Finance Committee to see if there is merit and funding.

AAPG is somewhere in the middle, giving the teeth for spending to the EC, but holding the ED accountable when things go awry.

To be fair to any new executive director, there must be a way to mitigate control over the financial health of AAPG. It is a delicate balance between the two. One solution the House is working on would be to let the ED and CFO set a budget for the year and once the EC has approved the budget, the ED and CFO have the full authority to do what is necessary to meet (or improve) those final numbers. The EC would still approve extraordinary expenses and unforeseen situation.

Potential Governance Changes

As I mentioned in my first column, the House is also looking at ways to eliminate unnecessary layers of governance, thus saving staff time and costs. The House of Delegates includes representatives from every region and section of AAPG. There is one delegate for every 70 members. However, for fair and equal representation, there is a clause that allows for a delegate to be elected from even small affiliated societies, which might not even meet the 70-member threshold. In this situation, the House has many more delegates than just the flat membership numbers would account for. The Bylaws state that each delegate must be elected, meaning even those smaller societies must find two candidates and hold an election. This process can often be a hardship for the smaller groups. The House Constitution and Bylaws Committee, chaired by Dan Billman, is looking to alter the wording for these smaller societies to allow for elections or appointments by their local board. This revision would also help societies by preventing them from scrambling to get two candidates and hold the election, saving time and money.

The big money-saver and streamlining portion also occurs in the House of Delegates. This year the C&BL committee was tasked with creating/amending several committees. Two of those committees, Honors and Awards and Nominations, would be expanded to handle House awards and nominations, and take on the task of the Association’s honors and awards and nominations, currently done in the Advisory Council. They would be comprised of the same representation of the current AC body, one member for each section and region and the presidents of all three divisions. The main difference would be the presence of three past presidents. The immediate past president would be a non-voting chair of the two committees, eliminating the need for two additional past presidents.

The key take-aways here should be the reduction of the time commitment for the office of president-elect. This also reduces bias from three past presidents and allows for the rest of the committee to state their cases for honorees or candidates a little easier. I have been a member of the Advisory Council twice, and I speak from experience about the willingness of the representatives to follow the heed of past presidents when there is an opinion, good or bad, about a potential candidate or honoree. At this point, the option for bowing out of the last couple of years on the AC is there, but we have only had one past president give up the remaining portion of their term since that change was enacted.

By reducing the obligation of the office of president-elect to three years instead of five, perhaps we can get a much bigger selection of qualified candidates for that term. When you are a mid-career geoscientist with a growing family and job obligations, it is hard to commit to a five-year term of office.

A new standing committee would also be created – a Long-Range Planning Committee, and would be made up of staggered three-year terms populated by members of the Executive Committee and other key leaders within the organization. It is to be chaired by the executive director. Exact details of the composition of this Committee are still being worked out, but there will not be more than nine members in total. A larger committee size could be unwieldy.

The current protocol for these committees would be the same as the current Advisory Council, including executive session for confidentiality. Moving these tasks to the House of Delegates eliminates one layer of governance and 12 elections for the positions will be eliminated. This change would have happened if the Re-imagine plan had been enacted, and it would save the organization the time and expense of holding the elections and having two or three meetings a year for that layer.

More Streamlining to Come

There is more to come in the next few months as the House tries to streamline and create efficiencies in governance and modernizing the Bylaws to eliminate antiquated functionality and wording. AAPG needs to be able to move quickly to stay relevant and compete with its peers out there in the marketplace. The functions of our governance system need to be streamlined – not all at once – but in a determined fashion palatable to all members.

Next month – A continuation of updates! Possibly a new ED? I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Best,
Deborah

You may also be interested in ...