Resolution 23(17) Information Sharing, Regular ACEP/Chapter Contact, and Regional State/Chapter Relationships
Page 4
Resolution 23(17) Information Sharing, Regular ACEP/Chapter Contact, and Regional State/Chapter Relationships
Page 4
RESOLUTION: 23(17)
SUBMITTED BY: Pennsylvania College of Emergency Physicians
SUBJECT: Information Sharing, Regular ACEP/Chapter Contact, and Regional State/Chapter Relationships
PURPOSE: Implement processes enhancing chapter relationships and information sharing; assign Board members and an appropriate staff member to participate in regular contact with chapters; explore concept of developing regional state chapter relationships; provide a report to the 2018 Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted staff resources. Additional travel expenses for Board members and staff to attend chapter and regional meetings.
Resolution 23(17) Information Sharing, Regular ACEP/Chapter Contact, and Regional State/Chapter Relationships
Page 4
WHEREAS, ACEP and its constituent state chapters have converging interests as expressed in their mutual mission and vision; and
WHEREAS, ACEP and state chapters function philosophically as an integrated goal oriented group of allied intertwined organizations seeking to support Emergency Physicians, assure access for their patients and inform and protect the general citizenry; and
WHEREAS, The directors and leadership of ACEP and state chapters are necessarily changing annually, creating an additional challenge to communication between the national and state organizations; and
WHEREAS, A framework for building and maintaining relationships between and among national and state chapters will allow for collaboration on future projects; and
WHEREAS, In our current 24/7 news cycle, with social media at the forefront of interactions, having a framework to communicate relevant information rapidly and receive feedback from stakeholders quickly is essential; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That ACEP make it a primary goal of the upcoming year to work with state chapters to identify, develop, and implement processes that enhance the relationship, optimizing appropriate and timely information sharing; and be it further
RESOLVED, That individual Board members and an appropriate staff member participate in regular contact with state chapters and report back to the Council in 2018; and be it further
RESOLVED, That ACEP explore the concept of developing Regional State Chapter relationships and report back to the Council on the feasibility and usefulness of doing so.
Resolution 23(17) Information Sharing, Regular ACEP/Chapter Contact, and Regional State/Chapter Relationships
Page 4
Background
The resolution requests that ACEP implement processes that enhance chapter relationships and information sharing, assign national ACEP Board members and an appropriate staff member to participate in regular contact with chapters, explore the concept of developing regional state chapter relationships, and provide a report to the 2018 Council.
ACEP has 53 chartered chapters, each governed independently by its own elected Board of Directors. Chapters advocate for the rights of physicians and their patients, provide CME and other educational resources, news, and leadership opportunities. As would be expected, due to geography and demographics, chapters vary widely in size and available resources. ACEP provides a broad array of resources to chapters consistent with our joint mission on behalf of our specialty and our patients.
ACEP’s Chapter Services Department has responsibility for coordination with and among chapter staff and member leadership. The department conveys ACEP information and resources to the chapters through a variety of programs, including functioning as a liaison between chapter and national ACEP staff, planning for chapter executive forums and audio conferences, and otherwise sharing information to meet chapter needs.
ACEP also promotes leader visit and residency visit programs through which ACEP officers and Board members attend chapter meetings and residencies on a rotating basis. The leader visit program was created in 1989. During his presidency, Jay Kaplan, MD, FACEP, asked staff to prioritize planning of leader visits to all chapters that had not received a visit within the last five years. The objective was achieved.
The concept of assigning Board Liaisons to chapters has been implemented and revisited several times, beginning in June 1997 when the Board decided to submit a resolution to the Council to close the membership of the College as of December 31, 1999. A campaign was undertaken to contact councillors and other chapter leaders to discuss the
resolution and encourage its adoption. Each Board member was assigned specific chapters to contact. The campaign, along with many communication strategies, was successful and the 1997 Council ultimately adopted the resolution. The Board decided to continue with the concept of Chapter Board Liaisons for the next few months and provide reports at each Board meeting regarding any concerns or issues facing chapters. Board members often reported on the difficulty in contacting chapter leaders and the program was discontinued in June 1998.
In January 2010, the Board again considered establishing Board Liaisons to chapters. There was consensus to delay implementing such a program at that time. The potential program was discussed again in January 2012. There were mixed reactions to establishing a formal program and questions were raised about the potential responsibilities for the Board and chapter leaders. A workgroup was assigned to further investigate establishing a program.
In May 2012, the National/Chapter Relations Committee discussed the concept of Board liaisons to chapters. There was unanimous and strong support from the committee and their recommendations were presented to the Board in June 2012 to develop a pilot program with the goal of improving communications between national and chapters. The Board approved establishing a one-year pilot program with the chapters most likely to benefit from such a program (identified as small chapters and unstaffed or utilizing part-time staffing).
Chapter Liaison Pilot Program Description
1. Pilot program for two years.
2. Send program information to all chapters; participation is optional.
3. Communication with chapters will be by email or phone call.
4. Chapters will absorb the cost for the Board liaison to visit the chapter.
5. Pilot program would not replace the Leader Visit Program. A chapter in the rotation schedule for the year may request whomever they wish for the leader visit.
6. Board liaison assignments made by the president.
7. Board liaisons contact designated chapters quarterly and provide feedback to the Chapter & State Relations Department.
8. At the end of each year of the pilot program a survey will be sent to chapters for feedback. The Board of Directors will evaluate the results of the program survey.
Eleven chapters were approved by the president to participate in the pilot program: AR, DE, ID, KS, MS, ND, NH, NM, PR, SD, and WY. The expectations for the program included: provide information, serve as a resource, and bring issues from these chapters to the Board as needed. On their April 17, 2013, conference call, the Board reviewed the Criteria for Board Liaisons to Chapters, recommendations for Board Liaison assignments, and information about each of the 11 chapters identified for the program. In June 2013, the Board approved the criteria and duties of the Chapter Board Liaison Pilot Program with implementation to begin after the 2013 Scientific Assembly.
Staff attempted to contact each of the chapters to confirm their willingness to participate in the pilot program. After many months of effort trying to contact the chapter leaders and formalize the program, it was abandoned for lack of response.
Some pros and cons to consider in creating a formalized chapter contact program are:
Pros
1. Reinforces that relations with chapters are a priority.
2. Provides a specific Board member for chapters to contact.
3. Enhances ongoing communications with chapters.
Cons
1. Time constraints of Board members and chapter leaders.
2. Difficulty in making contact, either by phone or e-mail.
3. Additional workload for national and chapter leaders.
4. Unintended negative consequences.
5. Potentially creates an expectation that a particular chapter’s issues have higher priority than other chapters (such as those who were not able to be contacted) or issues facing national ACEP.
6. Potentially circumvents the role of the Chapter & State Relations staff, the National/Chapter Relations Committee, the Membership Committee, the Executive Director, and ACEP President if chapters perceive there is a prescribed or expected method to voice questions and concerns.
7. May create expense concerns for ACEP’s budget or awkwardness if chapters want to invite the ACEP President, President-Elect, or another director for whatever reason, but the designated director liaison to the chapter expects to be invited and wants to attend.
Some chapters work together on joint regional meetings. For example, an annual Southeastern Chapters (SEC) conference is a collaboration of the Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee chapters. Similarly, the states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have collaborated for the last five years on their Coastal Emergency Medicine Conference. The Alaska and Washington chapters have also begun working on joint meetings.
For the 2017-18 year, the National/Chapter Relations Committee, with assistance from the State Legislative/ Regulatory Committee has been assigned an objective to “identify opportunities for regional collaboration and conferences.
ACEP Strategic Plan Reference
Goal 2 – Enhance Membership Value and Member Engagement
Objective A – Increase total membership and member retention.
Fiscal Impact
Travel expenses for Board members and staff to travel for purposes of participating in regular contact with state chapters; budgeted staff resources for supporting and promoting these efforts.
Prior Council Action
Substitute Resolution 45(95) Leader Visits to Chapters adopted. The resolution directed ACEP leadership to prioritize communication with state chapters and investigate technologies for improved communications.
Substitute Resolution 28(90) Leadership Visits to Chapters adopted. Directed ACEP to continue to investigate options for providing national physician/staff leader visits to chapters, including the option of conducting annual visits to chapters..
Prior Board Action
June 3013, approved the criteria and duties of the Chapter Board Liaison Pilot Program with implementation to begin after the 2013 Scientific Assembly.
April 2013, reviewed the Criteria for Board Liaisons to Chapters, recommendations for Board Liaison assignments, and information about each of the 11 chapters identified for the program.
June 2012, approved establishing a one-year Chapter Board Liaison pilot program to the chapters most likely to benefit from such a program.
January 2012, discussed the potential of establishing a Chapter Board Liaison. A workgroup was assigned to further investigate establishing a program.
January 2010, discussed establishing Board Liaisons to chapters. There was consensus to delay implementing a program at that time.
Substitute Resolution 45(95) Leader Visits to Chapters adopted.
Substitute Resolution 28(90) Leadership Visits to Chapters adopted and with a revised budget to change from a three year to a two year rotation schedule.
Background Information Prepared by: Harry J. Monroe, Jr.
Chapter & State Relations Director
Sonja Montgomery, CAE
Governance Operations Director
Reviewed by: James Cusick, MD, FACEP, Speaker
John McManus, MD, FACEP, Vice Speaker
Dean Wilkerson, JD, MBA, CAE, Council Secretary and Executive Director