Item 6.2 Attachment
NSPE Federation Challenges
National, State, Local Chapter, and Member Issues
The term “federation” is defined as “a league; a parent organization formed by the linking
of several states or societies, each retaining the control of much of its own affairs.”
In a sense, the United State of America is a “federation” based on the concept of federalism. The
U.S. was created by the separate colonies/states to form a union of states under the U.S.
Constitution. However, this development occurred after the states experimented with the Articles
of Confederation (1777–87) which (1) established a weak national government that did not have
any authority to pass any national laws binding upon the states, (2) could not nullify any state law
contrary to national law or in conflict with another state’s laws and (3) could not effectively
impose any taxes on citizens in the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state was
considered “sovereign.” Only after the Articles of Confederation were abandoned by the states as
unworkable (1789) and the U.S. Constitution was adopted did the U.S. government begin to
operate in an effective manner.
Likewise, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) was created as a
“federation” in 1934 by four state associations/societies (the New Jersey Association of
Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors formed in 1925, the New York State Society
of Professional Engineers formed in 1926, the Pennsylvania Society of Professional
Engineers formed in 1933, and the Connecticut Society of Professional Engineers formed
earlier in 1934).
NSPE was created with two types of “memberships”: (1) Member State Societies and (2)
Individual members who were members of the Member State Societies. The original
“Constitution of the National Society of Professional Engineers” contained the following
section on “State Autonomy”:
“In all matters of state or local concern, the Member State Societies shall retain
full autonomy, but may call upon the National Society for advice, counsel and
assistance. The National Society may recommend state legislation and procedures
in the interests of uniformity and efficiency, but action upon these
recommendations shall be determined by the Member State Society.”
Today, the language in the current NSPE Bylaw 7.2. is virtually unchanged, and reads as
follows:
“In all matters of state or local concern, State Society shall have full autonomy, but may
call upon National for advice, counsel, and assistance. National may recommend specific
legislative action and/or adoption of procedures to foster uniformity and efficiency of
service delivery to the members, but any action upon these recommendations shall be
determined by State Society.”
Based on that language (which can probably be summarized as “don’t call us, we’ll call you”), it
appears that the intent of NSPE’s founders and successor leaders was to create a national
organization that would provide national programs, policies, and initiatives for individual
members, but, while providing support as requested by Member State Societies, would recognize
the independent sovereignty of Member State Societies in all state and local affairs. In addition,
the original NSPE Board of Directors was a governance body consisting largely of individuals
representing each Member State Society. The current NSPE House of Delegates, charged with the
responsibility for amending the NSPE Bylaws, electing NSPE officers, and setting NSPE’s
strategic direction, consists largely of individual representatives from each Member State
Societies. Today, the Member State Society governance thrust and character of NSPE still
remains a clear and unmistakeable feature of the NSPE federation.
Just as importantly, these fundamental principles were implicitly and expressly based on and
reinforced by the essential notion of federation reciprocity—the notion that all individual
members of each Member State Society would be individual members of the National Society of
Professional Engineers (as well as the Member State Society) and have the responsibility to
support the national organization and pay member dues to the National Society.
For most of its almost 80 year history, NSPE’s Constitution and Bylaws mandated that all
members would be required to be members of both the National Society and the Member State
Society. NSPE’s strategic, operational, and financial ability to serve all individual members and
also provide the critical day-to-day support requested by Member State Societies (e.g., dues
collection, administration, membership, marketing, legal, government relations, public relations,
interest group, and publications) in the adoption of procedures to foster uniformity and efficiency
of service delivery to the members as stated in NSPE Bylaw 7.2 was and continues to be fully and
completely dependent upon this essential notion of federation reciprocity. This notion of
federation reciprocity is a practical recognition that a weak national organization ultimately
weakens individually and collectively the state organizations and a strong national organization
strengthens individually and collectively the state organizations. There are some tasks that can be
done only by a national organization. When the national organization is weakened those tasks
don’t get done, or worse yet, they get done poorly, which reflects negatively on the national
organization as well as the state organizations. In addition, in the past NSPE could provide
financial assistance to Member State Societies (e.g., “Jump Start” money, loans, and grants) to
assist Member State Society membership, marketing, government relations, “friend of the court”
briefs, and other initiatives or to assist Member State Societies or provide financial support during
difficult periods, revenue shortfalls, etc. This is no longer the case.
However, in recent years, NSPE’s Bylaws, Policies, and Procedures have been dramatically
amended to now permit Member State Societies to offer “state only membership” to Individual
Members without those Individual Members becoming members of or continuing membership
within the National Society of Professional Engineers, thereby greatly weakening what was
already a relatively weak federation structure as outlined earlier. Since the amendments were
enacted, many Member State Societies have aggressively marketed state only memberships, and
in several cases, effectively “cannibalized” the existing federation’s three-tiered members and
converted many of those three-tiered members to state-only members.
In “state-only” states, NSPE is technically permitted to offer “national-only” memberships.
However, NSPE’s ability to offer national-only membership in those states at the same time that
NSPE is also compelled to offer the longstanding federation’s three-tiered membership option
has, as a practical matter, created confusion and become problematic. Since, as a matter of policy,
NSPE strongly supports and advocates the federation’s three-tiered membership, NSPE’s
marketing and promotion of national-only membership alienates many Member State Societies
and also sends a mixed and confusing message to Individual Members and prospective members.
As a result, any NSPE national-only membership initiaitive is downplayed and frowned upon at
various levels within the organization. This dichotomy creates a double standard between NSPE
and the Member State Societies and has severely affected NSPE’s operational and financial
ability to continue to fullfill its responsibilities as envisioned under the former NSPE Constitution
and current Bylaws.
Also of crucial importance is that the increasing level of non-uniform membership offerings, dues
collection, and other non-uniform administrative procedures have strained NSPE’s operations and
finances nearly to the breaking point. In sum, the original notion of federation reciprocity that
was enshrined in the original NSPE Constitution has essentially been abandoned because of this
schism within NSPE.
The effect of this split can be seen in other areas. For example in recent years, internal
administration issues have arisen in some Member State Societies, raising serious concerns within
NSPE. Under the current federation and the language in the NSPE Bylaws discussed earlier,
NSPE has no expressed method of effectively addressing these issues except under NSPE Bylaw
7.3, which states, “The Board may revoke the charter of any State Society which fails to conform
to their charter with NSPE, after due and specific notice has been given to the State Society.”
Among the issues of concern NSPE has observed include:
• Financial improprieties involving Member State Society operations by state society staff;
• Conflicts between individual members and local chapters;
• Conflicts between individual members and Member State Societies;
• Conflicts between local chapters and Member State Societies;
• Member State Society issues relating to IRS tax compliance;
• Member State Society issues relating to state corporate compliance;
• Member State Society not following NSPE Graphic Design Guide relating to the use of the
NSPE logo;
• Member State Society’s obligation under its State Constitution and NSPE Bylaw 10 to take
disciplinary action against individual members; and
• Member State Society’s inability to administer chapter/state/national dues invoicing.
As a general rule, in most cases, NSPE volunteers and staff have sought to address these issues in
a discreet, diplomatic, and measured manner without creating needless disruption,
embarrassment, or division between NSPE and the Member State Society, by providing as much
support as possible. At the same time, under the NSPE federation model, NSPE’s options for
requiring the Member State Society to take any specific action are expressly limited.
Options that NSPE could explore with Member State Societies to address these and other issues
include the following:
•
Change the NSPE Bylaws to establish a procedure to permit the NSPE Board to impose
a solution in matters affecting the legal status of a state society. (Downside: Since
Member State Societies, along with their local chapters, are separately incorporated, this
approach could be costly to NSPE and also entangle NSPE in Member State Society or
local chapter legal and liability issues for which NSPE currently bears no responsibility.
In addition, NSPE may not be perceived as being wholly objective to one or more of the
parties involved.)
•
Change the NSPE Bylaws to establish a procedure for the NSPE Board to hear conflicts
and resolve matters that arise between a Member State Society and/or local chapter
and/or individual member (who is also a current NSPE member) . (Downside: This
procedure would entangle NSPE in state or local matters, which could damage NSPE’s
reputation and may expose NSPE to criticism. Moreover, NSPE would need the
cooperation of all parties, which would be difficult if not impossible to compel. Finally,
NSPE may lack the resources and does not possess the investigative powers to engage
in fact finding.)
•
In conflicts between Member State Society and individual members or local chapters,
have NSPE serve as resource for Member State Society in seeking independent thirdparty mediation/arbitration/review (e.g., ASAE, AAA, JAMS) (Downside: NSPE has no
authority to compel the parties to mediate, arbitrate, or seek review of these matters).
In sum, NSPE’s governance history and the current NSPE Bylaws have created a very weak
federation system that effectively limits NSPE’s ability to compel Member State Societies or local
chapters to take corrective action. The only current remedy available for NSPE is to expel a
Member State Society from the federation, a remedy that, in the interests of preserving the
federation, NSPE has been reluctant to pursue.
At the same time, underlying these problems are much more fundamental challenges facing
NSPE:
(a) Unless the level of non-uniform membership offerings, dues collection, and other nonuniform administrative procedures (which, as mentioned earlier, have strained NSPE’s
finances, administration, and operations nearly to the breaking point) is drastically reduced
or eliminated; and
(b) As instances of conflict among the aforementioned groups inevitably increase (as a
result of dwindling financial, volunteer, and staff resources); and
(c) With the lack of mutual reciprocity within the federation toward NSPE by some Member
State Societies;
NSPE will remain unable to effectively address these and other types of conflicts among and
within Member State Societies.
Returning to the earlier discussion regarding the U.S. as a federation, one reason the U.S.
government operates in a generally effective manner is because there are a number of national
institutions that bind the nation together (e.g., various military and other federal agencies, Social
Security, Medicare, and the interstate highway system) which give the national government
ongoing political legitimacy. In contrast, NSPE has seen its “institutions” (practice divisions,
vibrant GR program, national education, national meetings, vibrant PAC, and salary survey)
erode over time. Also, under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law is supreme
over state law. Under this principal, federal executive agencies have the authority to take action at
the state and local level to effect federal laws and policies. Furthermore, the federal courts have
the authority to overturn state laws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution. States have police
powers and regulate locally for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, but the
national government (executive, legislative and judicial branches) has final authority. As noted
above, NSPE is virtually powerless to require states to adhere to NSPE policies.
In closing, it must be stressed that these fundamental challenges are very much interrelated and
cannot be solved in a piecemeal manner. Any effort to do so will result in increasing the nonuniform administrative procedures and variations that exacerbate NSPE’s most fundamental
problems. To quote Harrison Coerver and Mary Byers in Race for Relevance:
“The changes required in association governance are the most important and most
difficult. They must be achieved first. If not, there will be little, if any, chance of making
meaningful progress on the other changes....”
Federation Challenges
National, State, Local Chapter and Membership Issues
Arthur Schwartz
NSPE Deputy Executive Director & General Counsel
January 19, 2013
Newport Beach, CA
NSPE Federation Challenges
• NSPE founding (and current) principles •
•
•
•
similarities and differences in comparison to the
f
founding
di off the
th U
United
it d States
St t
Member State Societies
Individual
d d l Members
b
Each Member State Society is sovereign
Limited national authority with national
governance linked to Member State Societies
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Original NSPE Model
– Federal Reciprocity
p
y – membership,
p, dues,,
administration, marketing, legal, GR, PR,
professional practice, publications, etc.)
– Uniformity, efficiencies, economies of scale
– National/States mutually reinforcing
– “A house divided cannot stand…” A. Lincoln
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Revised NSPE Bylaw, Policy, Procedural changes
– Federation now has less “glue” than before
– Message to members and potential members is
unclear
– Mandate to membership/marketing staff is unclear
– Fragmentation in membership marketing has resulted
in operational inefficiencies and confusion
– No enforcement mechanism - NSPE PPs OPs
OPs, APs
have no application to states unless the Member
State Society decides they apply
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Member State Societies
– NSPE has concerns over internal
administration among some Member State
Societies
– NSPE has provided guidance and assistance
– Only national authority is the “nuclear option”
– No federal “Supremacy Clause”
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Possible Options
– Authorityy to impose
p
a solution
– Authority to hear matters and propose
resolution
– Authority to serve as a resource to seek
independent third party resolution
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Long Term Governance Challenges for NSPE
• Less “glue” holding Member State Societies to NSPE
• Member dissatisfaction at the national and state levels
• Declining membership at the national and state levels
• Less resources challenge NSPE’s ability to sustain the “value
•
proposition”
iti ” tto members
b
and
d potential
t ti l members
b
NSPE inability to provide resources to assist Member State
Societies
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Long Term Governance Challenges for NSPE
• Increasing percentage of resources devoted to governance
• Decreasing percentage of resources devoted to members
• Determining where member resources should be focused –
•
•
•
National? States?
St t off Ch
Status
Chapters
t
Member State Society disaffiliation from NSPE
Member processes (membership data, dues invoicing, etc.)
becoming decentralized creating process duplication,
member/operational confusion and breakdown
NSPE Federation Challenges
• Potential
P
i l Options
O i
and
d Paths
P h Forward?
F
d?
–
–
–
–
“Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again” Option
“Status Quo” Option
“Federalism
Federalism – Strong NSPE – US Constitution”
Constitution Model Option
“Federalism - Weak NSPE and Strong Member State Societies” Articles of Confederation Model Option
– NSPE Acting Solely as a “Services Bureau” To Member State Societies
Option
• Member data base, dues collection, very limited membership
program activities (e.g., national licensure, ethics, professional
practice, trends, clearinghouse, etc.)
– “Go
Go Your Own Way”
Way Option
• NSPE and each state society operating independently with individual
member affiliating with one or more organizations as the member
individually chooses
NSPE Federation Challenges
Discussion?
Questions?