What District Are You In And Who Is Your Trustee?
Ulm,Trustee at Large
As our resolutions once again fade away and we settle in for 2014, I hope the memories of the holidays
continue to warm your hearts. We are setting the stage
for another awesome annual conference, and I want take this article as an opportunity to reach out to the membership for some input. Perhaps you can even give us that feedback during the
conference. I am proposing some changes in the Board
appearance that will affect each of you. Please read on, form an opinion,
find your trustee, and tell them your opinion. THANKS!
My role as Trustee at Large is to represent the out of state
members and assist any District trustee that needs help with
something. But I think it is also to look at things as a whole and try to
resolve issues such as this.
The State is split into 5 districts. The map shows the
District boundaries with the approximate number of members in each
district. The number outside of the state represents the out of state
members. The percentage of membership per district is shown below:
District 1 - 8.7%
District 2 - 56.5%
District 3 - 11.3%
District 4 - 9.3%
District 5 - 7.1%
Out of State - 7.1%
As you can see, there is a bit of unbalance in the District 2
membership percentage. The District does have two trustees, but there is
still an imbalance with those two trustees each representing over two times the number of members as other
trustees. Also, there are no sub district boundaries within the district,
so there is confusion over responsibility.
Don't get me wrong, the District 2 Trustees do a great job.
They cover tons of events and seminars and very professionally represent the
lion’s share of the membership. But they deserve some relief and the
members deserve some clarity in who represents them.
So I am proposing subdivision of District 2 to form distinct
boundaries for the trustees, so they and the members know who represents whom.
After investigation, the membership in District 2 by county is represented in
the figure below:
In trying to create defined boundaries, but not increasing the
size of the board, one option is to stay with two trustees
for the district and simply make a Cook County trustee and a
Suburban Trustee. This comes pretty close to balancing out the work load between the two
trustees, but gives them both a big percentage of the membership and gives the
suburban trustee a huge amount of area to cover.
As can be
seen, Cook County alone has twice as many members when compared to other districts.
So perhaps having two trustees represent Cook County, then having one or two
new trustees added to the Board to split up the rest of the District would be
Another option may be to add two new District
2 trustees with one representing Cook County, one representing Lake and McHenry
Counties, one representing Kane and DuPage Counties, and one representing
Kendall, Grundy, Will, and Kankakee Counties. This option really balances out
the membership representation nicely. It also can delineate a Trustee to
attend chapter meetings, but it gives District 2 four votes of the nine Trustee
Or, maybe one new Trustee in District
2 with one representing Cook County, one representing McHenry, Lake, and
Kane Counties, and one representing DuPage, Kendall, Grundy, Will, and Kankakee
Counties. Responsibility would still be delineated. District
members would have a clear understanding of who their representative is.
Some relief would be offered to the trustees, but it would be difficult to tell
who should go to the Mid Central Water Works meeting or the South Suburban
Water Works Association meeting, not to mention the North Suburban Water
Works Association meeting versus the Kane County Water Works Association
There you have it. I am proposing some major changes. There are several options on how to do it better, but the
decision is a tough one. We need your input and
thoughts. Figure out who your trustee is, call them or email them, and
tell them what you think about this. If you don’t know
who your trustee is, contact your Trustee at Large!