Out of bounds

According to CSI's master calendar, some major activities are scheduled to occur at various intervals. Among other things, the Format series documents come up for review every seven years, the Institute long range plan is updated every five years, and, as required by Institute bylaws, "The Institute Board shall review region boundaries at intervals not to exceed five years and shall adjust the boundaries when required to maintain proper operation and administration of the regions." This is one of those years in which region boundaries are being reviewed. I don’t see much point in changing region boundaries, but subdivision of regions can, for some regions and chapters, make sense.

CSI's region boundaries have been the same for many years. We have ten regions that include the entire US, and a couple of at-large chapters in other countries. States and cities aren't the same size, and population is not evenly distributed, so it isn't surprising that there are significant differences between regions.

There also are differences in geographic area, but most regions have maximum travel distances of several hundred miles. The Northwest and West regions, with the States of Alaska and Hawaii, obviously have the greatest separation of chapters, but if you look at the region maps, you will see that other regions cover large areas. You also will see that many regions include vast areas in which there is no CSI chapter. Taken together, these variations make it difficult to compare regions in a meaningful way, making it difficult at best to justify changing region boundaries.

There are even greater differences between chapters. They vary widely in number of members, from about ten to five hundred, with an average of about one hundred. Each region has at least a couple of large chapters with about two hundred members, and some regions have “super chapters” with over three hundred members.

The intent of having regions, each with its own internal management and communication, was that they would serve as intermediaries between chapters and Institute. When travel and long distance phone calls were expensive, that was a logical way to provide communication from top to bottom of an organization. Region leaders received training and information directly from Institute, then met with chapter leaders to help them with chapter activities and explain Institute business. Going the other way, chapters would express their concerns to regions, which would then pass them on to Institute.

Do the region boundaries need to be changed? If the current boundaries worked when we had almost 20,000 members they should work just as well now, with twenty-five percent fewer members. The single greatest obstacle to intra-region communications is distance, and that has not changed.

The first time I went to a region conference, I heard a heated discussion about the function of the region, and many members argued we should simply stop having region activities. That argument continues to this day, and I don't believe it is unique to my region. In the smaller regions, or those with closely grouped chapters, it is easier to support region activities, but in other regions, it is much more difficult for the chapters to meet. Another idea that has been discussed many times is subdividing regions, with nearby chapters having their own joint activities without involving the entire region. Again, this might work in some regions, but not in others. The Los Angeles and Orange County chapters are separated by less than fifty miles, and the Chicago and Northern Illinois are only thirty miles apart; it would be easy for both pairs of chapters to work together on many activities. In contrast, many chapters are hundreds of miles from the nearest chapter.

Still, for many groups of chapters it would be relatively easy to work together. Many of our industry members already are members of two or more chapters, and some are active in more than one chapter. Even though virtual meetings are now both easy and inexpensive, making it possible for any chapter to have a virtual meeting with anyone, there is no substitute for meeting face-to-face; that is why chapters are often in the best position to help other chapters. Chapter officers and committees meet regularly, their members know each other, and there is a good chance that they know at least some of the members in neighboring chapters.

I'm not suggesting chapters merge, though that could be an option in some cases. But for chapters that are within ninety minutes' travel time, it would be easy to join forces, at least for the certification, education, and membership committees. Each chapter must schedule its own programs, but even then, cooperation between neighboring chapters would eliminate similar subjects, providing each chapter twice the number of subjects each year. Many chapters serve an area that extends sixty or more minutes from their centers, so it's obvious that that amount of travel should not be an obstacle.

The largest chapters have an opportunity - perhaps an obligation - to help other chapters, regardless of location. With their greater resources they can afford more expensive events, and can attract speakers that may not be available to smaller chapters. In November 1999, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter, which then had almost six hundred members, had an extraordinary meeting, titled "Construction Documents Now and in the Future." The speakers were Bob Johnson, then vice president at RTKL, Robert Dean, president of BSD, Ted Smith, president of ARCOM, and Colin Gilboy, president of 4specs.com - a group you might otherwise find together only at a convention. That meeting was made available by webcast to other chapters, many of which would not have had the resources to do set up the same meeting. Webcast technology has improved significantly since then, and it now is possible for any chapter to host a virtual meeting; we don't have to wait for Institute to do it.

As noted, I see no reason to change region boundaries; nor do I see any reason to abolish them. They still serve to divide the country into smaller areas that can support chapters more effectively than would be possible if they did not exist. If regions were eliminated, and neighboring chapters decided to band together, many isolated chapters would find themselves alone, an unacceptable situation.

We have far more important issues to resolve than redrawing region boundaries. For now - and for the foreseeable future - let's leave them as they are. Regions should take it on themselves to find ways to better support their chapters, chapters should help each other when possible, Institute should expand use of available technology to improve direct communication from the Board and staff to chapters, and chapter officers and chairs should become more active in keeping their chapter members informed. It's been said many times that people don't join CSI to be part of the Institute; instead, they join it to become part of a chapter, and that is where essential CSI-to-member communication should occur.

Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA
Institute Director, North Central Region, CSI

*Table information is from February 2008 Institute member database. Non-affiliated members are not included. Some chapters include small parts of states, so the indicated number of states included in a region was adjusted to produce a total of fifty states.