The Case for a Washington DC Office
John K. Ramsey, CAE
Executive Director/CEO
The Case for a Washington DC Office
CEO Blog (Vol. II)
Upon arriving at my new post as the Executive Director/CEO of CEFPI, I was struck by the fact that we were essentially operating in an environment centered around Scottsdale, AZ. Don’t get me wrong; Scottsdale is a paradise with great golf, seven months of great weather, D-Backs, Suns, Cardinals and much more.
However, a location like Scottsdale, AZ has its challenges for an association like CEFPI that is primarily vested in education and the school building sector. As our US members get ready for a new administration in their capital, I believe it is imperative for us to have a solid presence in DC.
How many times are we called upon by the mainstream media, Congress, private foundations, and international NGO’s to help solve critical problems relating to school facilities? Are we in front of key policy makers? How often do we interact with staff who frame policies relevant to your daily business? Sadly, the answer is very little. The primary reason? We are not connected as well as we should be in the proper circles, channels, and networks.
To make your voices heard, CEFPI needs to have a presence in front of key people and daily education meetings happening in Washington DC. Sometimes, sitting in far away Scottsdale I’ve thought…"If we were in that meeting; or why weren’t we invited to participate?" A presence in DC will also help us develop relationships with our partner organizations, offering us easy access to world leadership bodies such as Embassy Row and the North American EU headquarters, and many private development agencies such as the Pew Foundation. Take a look at where most of our sister associations are located and you’ll find that most of them have a presence in DC or in its periphery.
It is heartening to note that CEFPI President Kirkley and the executive committee have realized that CEFPI may need to reassess its physical location and start building the vital relationships – most of which are headquartered in Washington DC.
With that realization, we have visited with many of you out there and the overwhelming response to this notion has been, at least to me, why are we not in Washington DC already? The issue isn’t entirely simple but I will throw out some factors that may contribute to the conversation. Our current operation is fully staffed with people who reside in the Phoenix area, so a complete move would be extremely expensive, not to mention we would stand to loose some staff. Office space in DC is expensive, but it is comparable to Scottsdale – presently CEFPI owns it’s building. Those are the negatives to the prospect of having a DC office.
Now, the good news. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Technology allows us to instantly communicate to almost anyone in the world in real time in a seamless environment. If you are reading this blog, you already know that. I believe the answer is that we establish a DC presence immediately – not with an office of staff at first, but we find ways to use our assets that we already have (i.e. consultants in the DC area) and show up when we need to. The step after that involves placing a key staff member in DC then ultimately one or two more. The bulk of our operation can remain in Scottsdale with the essential elements, yet to be determined, being located in DC. I’ve actually achieved this very scenario in a prior association that had the same dilemma and after 6 years, they are thriving with a dual operation.
This is the solution I've been giving some CEFPI members, now I'd like to know what you think.
Because educational facility issues are determined at the state level as much, if not more, than at the federal level, you can make this argument for a lot of places. Why not have regional office presence - like those in ASBO or NSBA or ASAE, etc. Washington DC would be a good place for the NE region to start developing a space/presence; it could ultimately be another CEFPI office.
However, at this time, we have some really important issues to address regarding membership services, growth, and retention - not to mention our financial state before making more commitments to salary and space rental.
As for Private foundations - As a grant writer i know that there are more than 70,000 of those private foundations all over the country. It is easy to look at the obvious ones in DC or Seattle or New York - but look in your own backyard - they are everywhere.
We can certainly entertain a Washington DC office but we need to look at it as a part of a strategic plan. You have to realize that many of the members thought that a Washington DC presence was being addressed by the Foundation and its programs over the course of the last 5 years; Tom Kube also was involved in a lot of Washington activities.
As for the Scottsdale location, our membership at the time made the decision to locate in Scottsdale for some very good reasons. Those reasons are still valid but we are not providing the programs as they were meant to be. I think we are lucky that we now have a very valuable space to call our own during this economic climate.
Reply to this
I joined CEFPI a year ago, when I conducted a 1 hour break out on IAQ and Energy Conservation. And I have not heard one word from the organization since. No activity no nothing. CEFPI need to get off their behinds and get to work. States are not addressinbg the educational issues.
Reply to this
Those are Excellent comments! Thank you for contributing! I totally agree that we need to focus on member services and ways to engage our membership. Washington DC is host to the largest number of associations in this country and possibly the world. The resources for non-profits are widely abundant in the DC and we have recently engaged in contract services for our conference and other vital services which we hope will inject a new enthusiasm into the membership. Again, I'm not suggesting that we move the entire office there tomorrow, but to start a DC presence that will ensure our growth into the future.
I also agree with your statement about state and local focus. One of the misconceptions in our membership is that we can't work the legislatures or regulators as an organization. Please see my statement on Sue Robertson's blog that addresses that very issue. We need to get the chapters engaged in influencing legislative and regulatory issues and my ambition is to build an HQ that can equip the chapters and provide the tools and information to do just that. Again, being co-located with the AASA's and the NSBA's makes it easier and less expensive in the long run.
Given our economic situation, particularly the performance of last year, we really have to think outside of the box and this is one of many ways in which we are putting new ideas out to the membership for input. I certainly appreciate yours and hope we can many more opinions in this discussion.
Reply to this
As CEFPI takes the next step from "good to great",the creation of a dual operation located in Scottsdale and Washington,DC is an essential part of that effort. Your comments on the international implications are especially relevant if we are truly serious about making the "I" in our name more important. From a research standpoint a presence in DC would not only enable us to collaborate with the host of foundations located there to assist us in identifying and funding research, but also enable us to disseminate that research more effectively to our target audience.
Since we will be gathering in Dallas in a few weeks to work on our Strategic Plan, an opportunity exists now to incorporate this initiative into our discussions, establish a timeline for its implementation, and enable the organization to budget for the initiative's implementation costs over a multi-year period giving us financial flexibility as we move forward.
I agree that a dual office operation provides a reasonable middle ground which enables us to use the power of technology, maximize our existing financial and human resources, while moving forward in the next phase of our development.
Reply to this
All of these points are well made. How best to use our limited resources is a vexed question, and one that occupies our antipodean minds in terms of our Australasian region. We too have federal vs state issues in Australia, and are now beginning to grapple with the needs of members in Singapore, India and New Zealand.
John's points in favour of DC are compelling, and I have no relevant experience to offer so will not enter that part of the debate.
I am of the view however that any initiative which improves services to members would be welcome. It would be great to have a model which allowed us to have a "presence" in a number of locations. Just what that "presence" is may vary from case to case, and needs to have local relevance. It may be a virtual office, but one which is cogniscent of local conditions (and time zones!)
Dealing with the Scottsdale vs DC question might be the opportunity to consider a new model for distributed representation/presence which can be applied in an international context.
Reply to this
In response to Andrew's comments:
This is a very important point made. Not only are we challenged with US issues -- which can be handled by our US members/staff, but we want to be able to poise ourselves to respond to emerging issues in other countries which will require a new set of tools and assistance from the HQ. Again, the issue here for the HQ is that we need readily available resources which are widely present in the US capital of DC -- association management tools that stretch beyond US shores. The issues in Sydney, Quebec City, and other non-US cities require an entirely different approach from local members in those countries. The model we set into place in DC could help us develop the necessary tools to equip non-US members drive legislative initiatives in their respective countries. The key, local involvement.
Even within the US, there are issues that are addressed at the local and state level that are best handled by the local CEFPI members. This is the same issue with non-US chapters and regions. Our mission at HQ should be to equip those chapters/regions with the necessary tools to help them succeed in tackling the plethora of issues that arise. This infrastructure will take some time to establish, but I truly believe that given our momentum of turning CEFPI from a staff driven organization into a member driven association, will prove to serve those needs effectively. Great comment -- thanks!
Reply to this
We need full time representation in Washington, DC. I understand it may take a while to move the entire operation, but Scottsdale is not the center of the universe when it comes to national (and international) politics. Sorry!
Reply to this
Nobody thinks it is - but up until now we have not been involved in politics. And as we are international, Washington DC is not the center of all members' universes either.
I think the point is that the current office was found and paid for by our previous members to create some stability and affordability to future membership. Thank God we have this asset. Multiple office presence is the answer - and one in each region would be a great start to helping with our other service problems while also providing a place for region records and meetings, etc.
Definitely a good discussion item...
Reply to this