Proposals for Reorganization of NNECAPA and State Planning Associations

Proposals for Reorganization of NNECAPA and State Planning Associations

Page 1

August 17, 2017

Proposals for Reorganization of NNECAPA and State Planning Associations

PART I - RETREAT SUMMARY

On April 7 and 8, 2017 representatives of Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association (NNECAPA), Maine Association of Planners (MAP), New Hampshire Planners Association (NHPA), and Vermont Planners Association (VPA) gathered for two days at AMC’s Highland Center in Crawford Notch, NH to discuss possibilities for organizational collaboration. This unprecedented summit was spurred by a NNECAPA Executive Committee retreat in early 2016 and the Chapter’s resulting Strategic Plan. See NNECAPA’s Yankee Planner Winter 2017 newsletter edition for an introduction to this initiative and a description of some different options being considered.

The goals of the meeting were to (1) discuss problems and benefits of the status quo, and (2) identify pros and cons of different organizational structures. The group also discussed the histories of the different organizations to understand how they evolved to their current status. Nationally, the Northern New England region is very unusual with its multi-state APA Chapter and independent individual state planning organizations.

Organizational Histories

NNECAPA: The American Institute of Planners (AIP) was the predecessor to APA. In 1948, the New England Chapter of AIP was created (all six states of New England were included in the Chapter). In the 1970s, Connecticut separated and created its own chapter of AIP. In 1978, AIP merged with American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO) to create APA. In 1980 the Northern New England states (VT, NH & ME) created their own chapter of APA. In 1994, RI and MA separated into their own chapters of APA.

MAP – Created in 1968 and is a 501(c)(6) organization. MAP is starting to build recognition at the state level. Has been a mixed board including lawyers and mapping professionals; and they are seeing more and more diversity. The board works for planning as a whole and not just for planners.

NHPA – Created in 1970 as a non-profit corporation, but does not have a federal 501(c) determination. At the mid-1990s, an initiative organized by the NHPA Executive Committee to establish NHPA as a section of NNECAPA was put to member vote; the effort failed…narrowly.

VPA – Created in 1987, and became a 501(c)(3) in 2002. VPA was established to be multi-disciplinary, which is included in its mission statement. VPA has representatives on other boards at the state level, such as the Downtown Board.

Goals for Process of Possible Restructuring

Recognize the importance of maintaining each state association’s individual identity and some degree of autonomy in whichever restructuring option might be chosen
Address state associations’ problems with limited human resources capacity given their major responsibilities such as NNECAPA Conference, providing professional development opportunitiesincluding AICP CM, Awards, and Legislative activity
Improve the financial sustainability of state associations
Address NNECAPA’s difficulty in using its existing financial resources.
Reduce redundant actionsthat are both the responsibility of NNECAPA & state associations (e.g., finances, membership renewals, website maintenance, event organization)
Work to enable state associations to better focus on planning needs and “threats” specific to each state such as political changes and issues (state or federal)
Simplify dues and membership for those who are members of both a state association and NNECAPA
Resolve issue of NNECAPA members subsidizing state association members in terms of membership services/benefits
Improve servicesfor all four associations and members
Clarify and strengthen advocacy efforts, for all organizations

Options Reviewed

Maintain the current structure between state associations and NNECAPA – status quo
NNECAPA and state associations enter into an agreement to share resources
State associations become Sections of NNECAPA
State associations become individual Chapters of APA; NNECAPA dissolves

Pros and Cons of Different Options

Status quo

Pro:

Familiar structure for many members
Ease of continuity
Autonomy in decision making and funds expenditure for the associations

Con:

Financially difficult to sustain
Burden on volunteers to run multiple organizations
Member confusion regarding roles of different organizations
NNECAPA members subsidize planners who belong only to state associations but not to NNECAPA
Planners that belong just to NNECAPA remain uninvolved in state associations

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NNECAPAand state associations

Pro:

Increased level of coordination
Easier to get member consent
Conference administration could be done at NNECAPAlevel
Contract exists between the Associations and NNECAPA
Independenceof associations is maintained
Administrative support sharing between associations and NNECAPA

Con:

Underlying financial sustainability issues not addressed
Plannersthat belong just to NNECAPA remain uninvolved in state associations
Existing inefficiencies are not resolved.

State associations become Sections of NNECAPA

Pro:

Streamlined administration and finances
Structured flow of financial resources to state associationsbased on organizational bylaws
Single web platform available through APA for NNECAPA and state association use
Single dues payment for members (APA membership not required)
Conference planning at NNECAPA level
Coordinated bylaws
Potential increase in membership
Better connection of citizen planners to NNECAPA and APA
Benefit to the region and to each state for advocacy because of state association access to APA communications resources
Regional approach strengthened by new organizational structure and improved flow of information.
Strengthened connection across states
Relatively easy to explain to membership
All members become associated with a state organization (section)

Con:

Association with APA oneway or another for members of NNECAPA and associations
Dues structure may be more limited, especially for the potential for different section dues
Resistance to change among some association members
Loss of state associations’ autonomy
Potential loss – at some level – of state associations’ organizational identity
Possibility of larger and more active state sections subsidizing weaker ones financially.

State associations become individual Chapters of APA, NNECAPA dissolves

Pro:

High degree of state autonomy
Clear identity
More direct connection to APA & its resources

Con:

Harder to convince members currently belonging only to state associations
Probably not sustainable for MAP and VPA – lack of financial capacity and numbers of members to be an APA chapter

Retreat Summary Findings

It became fairly clear during the retreat that the “status quo” option (1) is not sustainable for NNECAPA. Similarly, the state associations expressed that they are also experiencing limited and dwindling resources in volunteers and finances. In addition, for two of three of the state associations, , the ability to become individual state chapters (option 4) is unlikely due to minimum APA requirements. NHPA is the only state association with enough members and resources to entertain this option.

The retreat group did feel this assessment leads to a preferred direction to pursue (in terms of the options): Option 2 or 3, but the next step involves taking the assessment to the state associations and engaging in dialogue to come to mutual agreement on the best course of action.

The retreat group decided to establish a Task Force to carry out the next steps – this Task Forceis primarily the NNECAPA and state association presidents and treasurers. As additional people are needed to work on things from the NNECAPA or state association boards, they will be brought in.

The Task Force’s job is to:

●Start thinking through the issues and financial implications for the identified options

●Get more answers to known questions

● Present the findings to each state association

●Gather input on issues and chose an option that works for all

Timeline

●Task 1: Spring/Summer 2017 - Get questions from membership

●Task 2: Summer 2017 - Discuss options and questions with Presidents and Treasurers

●Task 3: Summer/Fall 2017 - Review results of Task Force findings with membership and travel state-to-state to discuss options with Boards and members

●Task 4: Winter 2017/2018 – Memberships of organizations vote on final option

Representatives who participated in the retreat:

NNECAPA – Sarah Marchant, President; Sandrine Thibault, Vice-President; Jim Donovan, Treasurer; Yuseung Kim, Professional Development Officer (PDO); Anna Breinich, Assistant PDO; Ben Frost, Public Information Officer (PIO); Carl Eppich, Past President; Brandy Saxton, Vermont State Director; Carol Eyerman, Maine State Director

MAP – Carol Eyerman, President; Amanda Bunker, At-large; Carl Eppich, At-large

NHPA – Ben Frost, Treasurer; Sarah Marchant, NNECAPA Legislative Liaison; Donna Benton, PIO; Becky Hebert, Secretary

VPA – Mark Kane, President; Brandy Saxton, Vermont State Director to NNECAPA

Facilitator - Bob Mitchell, FAICP

PART II - Task Force

The Task Force was tasked with researching and reporting on a deeper look at financials, membership, and administration under each of the options, to provide the results to the membership at the NNECAPA business meeting in September 2017.

WHO WE ARE TODAY - ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN

Their first step was to complete an environmental scan to better understand where each organization is at currently. This data provides the basis for who each of the state associations are today, so we can best inform future decision making. This next section lays out a high level look at how our organizations are currently structured, each of our missions, membership composition, dues structures and budgets.

Organization Structure

Currently, we are four separate and independent organizations, each with its own administrative structure and requirements for dues payments by members. Only NNECAPA is affiliated with APA. The four organizations share much of the same separate but overlapping members and the same limited pool of volunteer resources. Annually, one of the three state associations and NNECAPA collaborate on the annual NNECAPA Conference. The history of how each of the organizations evolved can be found in Part I.

All four organizations have the status of non-profit corporations. NNECAPA operates under APA’s auspices, but has a separate federal 501(c)(3) designation. MAP has a federal 501(c)(6) designation. VPA has a federal 501(c)(3) designation. NHPA is pursuing a federal 501(c)(3) designation.

NNECAPA is unusual within APA as a multi-state chapter. There is only one other chapter serving multiple states, being Western Central, consisting of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. That chapter also included Idaho until a couple of years ago when they formed their own chapter. What is more common within APA are chapters that have separate Sections that represent distinct geographic regions within a chapter. Many of the larger states have Sections, which can be largely independent organizations or closely tied to the chapter depending on the structure of their by-laws.

Missions

The mission statements of the four organizations have distinct differences, which will need to be respected as each of the options are evaluated. As discussed at the retreat, key to moving forward with either an MOU (option 2) or having the state associations become official sections (option 3) is the ability to continue to allow each association to maintain their mission, identity, and independence.

NNECAPA Mission Statement: The purpose of the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association, shall be to improve and promote the standards and quality of planning at all levels in the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, to encourage the free exchange of ideas among planners in Northern New England, and to facilitate the participation of members in the activities of the American Planning Association.

MAP Mission Statement: The Maine Association of Planners, or MAP, is a 501(c)6 nonprofit organization of over 100 members, including professional public, private, and nonprofit planners, citizen volunteers serving on local boards, and Mainers from other professions like attorneys, landscape architects, professors, and developers. Though our membership works in diverse settings, we are all dedicated to enhancing the practice of planning in Maine.

NHPA Mission Statement: The NHPA promotes, assists, and supports the professional planner in the goal of achieving planning excellence to improve the quality of life today and tomorrow in New Hampshire’s communities.

VPA Mission Statement: The Vermont Planners Association is a non-profit advocacy and educational organization of planners and related professionals. We are dedicated to advancing community planning in Vermont at the local, regional, and state levels, to foster vibrant communities and a healthy environment

Membership Composition

NNECAPA membership in ME, NH and VT totals 354 members as of June, 2017. The membership is split with almost a third residing in each state and a small percent (4%) from outside of the three states. One third (34%) of NNECAPA’s, 330 members do not currently belong to any state association.

Of the state associations, Maine has approximately 100 members, Vermont has 190 members and New Hampshire has 220 as of spring 2017. In each state, the composition of membership is very similar, approximately 60% of membership is a state only member, with the remaining 40% holding membership in both NNECAPA and the state association (see Attachment 1 – Roster Comparisonfor full membership breakdown).

Dues Structure

Membership dues are the primary revenue source for all four organizations. MAP raised its dues approximately 12 years ago. VPA has not raised their dues in many years, while NHPA made a decision to increase dues recently to grow its financial stability and look to covering some of the growing burden of administration. NNECAPA dues are tied to member salaries.

MAP

●Regular Member - $50

●Retired - $25

●Municipal/student - $25

VPA

●$40 – Individual

●$125 – Organization, up to 5 people (over 5, group rate increases by $25/additional person)

●$25 – full-time student (may continue pre-existing membership at student rate for 1 year after graduation)

●$25 – Emeritus (individuals over the age of 65)

NHPA

●$65 – Individual

●$275 – Organization

●$20 Student/Retired

NNECAPA

●25% of APA Dues (Ranging from a low of $45 to $102 depending on salary, see Attachment 2 – APA Dues for full breakdown)

Budgets

The budgets of the four associations vary greatly along with amount of reserve savings. Each of the organizations are in different stages of financial stability. Both NNECAPA and NHPA have strong financial reserves and stable budgets;VPA has strong reserves, but a more limited budget; MAP has limited a budget and reserves. For comparison purposes the FY17 budgets were reviewed for each of the organizations (see Appendix XX). The budgets at the most basic level are as follows:

Association / Revenue / Expense / End Balance / Reserves
MAP / $8,000 / $7,750 / $50 / $22,000
NHPA* / $30,150 / $29,600 / $550 / $25,700
VPA / $13,500 / $15,900 / ($2,400) / $5,291
NNECAPA / $16,691 / $20,627 / ($3,936) / $53,238

For all the contemplated options each association would keep their own reserve accounts. Research included evaluating budget capacities and how resources could be shared in the future, it does not contemplate requiring any of the associations to pool existing resources.

WHO WE WANT TO BE – GOALS AND OUTCOMES

Through the Retreat, the four organizations agreed that the main goals are to provide high quality professional and educational services to our members by increasing and stabilizing capacity, at all levels, while ensuring we have a stake in positive planning policy at both the local and national level.

The limitations of our current organizations from reaching this goal are apparent. Each of our organizations is, in some degree, struggling to:

●Maintain adequate volunteer capacity

●Manage administrative tasks with volunteers only

●Engage in policy and legislative process

●Limitor eliminate burn out of volunteers with large event planning

●Provide continuing quality services with turnover of volunteers

For the above reasons, the Task Force focused on Option 2 and Option 3 to better understand how these options can move all four organizations closer to their goals.

Combine Major Repetitive Tasks and Operating Costs

In comparing the four associations there are major administrative tasks that each organization struggles to provide with its existing volunteers. Some of these items are reflected in operating budgets but most are not. These are the items that volunteer executive committee members spend significant time on, including:

●Accounting/Bookkeeping

●Tax filing

●Newsletter layout and distribution

●Graphic Design and Marketing

●Major annual conference administration (both state and NNECAPA) including contracts, venue negotiations, registration, etc.

●Membership Management

●Website

While the first five items in the above list would be the same under either Option 2 or 3, both membership management and website would be handled differently under Option 3.

Membership Management

APA provides all of NNECAPA’s membership management services from invoicing to membership management. This is a service provided to all APA Chapters for a small fee which is automatically deducted from the quarterly dues payments.

Membership management is one of the more time-consuming tasks that each state association struggles with. NHPA and MAP have invested in accounts with Wild Apricot and Constant Contact at an annual cost for each organization of under $1000, to help manage membership. VPA utilizes XXX.

Under Option 3, with the state associations becoming Sections of NNECAPA, APA would handle the bulk of all membership management, reducing both costs and volunteer time. There is an exception, in that APA cannot manage organizational memberships (multiple members within a single organization), so possiblya small number of memberships would still need to be processed within the Chapter or organizational memberships would need to be discontinued.

Websites

Another redundant cost across all four organizations is the four different websites and website management. While both NHPA and MAP utilize Wild Apricots services, VPA and NNECAPA have a private website management services. Each organization spends the following on website services annually: