Bill Swartz (member #835 ) presented the work product of the ad hoc members survey committee (including Peter Lantos and Efrem Zaret) at the October Annual Meeting. He reported the final tabulation of the returns. The numerical ratings and graphical representations of all the questions were represented in a series of 52 overhead projections. This impressive mass of information was easy to absorb but difficult to compress into a brief report. The presentation included 13 conclusions that the committee drew from the responses followed by 7 detailed recommendations.

THE MAJOR CONCLUSIONS WERE THAT THE MEMBERS:

• Joined so as to get clients
• Support the Clearing House system of referrals
• Support more promotion of ACC&CE
• Approve of expanding the criteria for membership
• Are computer literate for the most part
• Want the Internet page to promote ACC&CE and bring in clients
• Favor efforts to involve more members in governance
• Like the newsletter
• Would like more information about association finances
• Would consider a merger with a similar organization

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT:

• The newsletter, the directory and monthly meetings be continued and enhanced
• The Clearing House Inquiry (CHI) system be overhauled
• The membership base be expanded to include scientists and engineers other than chemical
• An aggressive marketing program be created to make the association better known
• Possible merger possibilities and joint membership plans be studied
• A directed effort be made to involve more members in governance and meetings
• A new mailing list be created targeted to specific sources of consulting assignments and new members.

Swartz concluded with an impassioned plea for volunteer participation in the realization of these ambitious recommendations. He hopes that there will be further discussion of them and invites members to request copies of the detailed survey results and analyses. These may obtained by sending a printing and mailing fee of $3 to the ACC&CE;office and reqesting the Membership Survey Report.

Peter Lantos (member #597) of The Target Group gets what he expects. Here he tells of a client who used a flimsy excuse to not pay him for a job well done.

"Upon completion of an assignment, our client declined to pay the agreed-upon fee of $10,000. He claimed that our final report, which consisted of a written report plus a one-day presentation of its contents, fell short in that they had expected, an 8-hour presentation. What I had given lasted 6 hours."

"We asked the client to check what was in the report vs. what our proposal contained and to identify anything missing. He couldn't find anything missing; nor was there anything in the proposal specifying the length of our verbal presentation. His only argument was that he had expected an 8-hour lecture."

"Our lawyer advised that it would be foolish to sue a company in Houston while we are located in Philadelphia, that the cost would be far greater than what we could collect. At that point I had an idea. I wrote to the head of my client's parent company in Europe, simply informing him of what had happened and asking whether this is the way he wants his U.S. subsidiary to operate. Two weeks later we had the check for $10,000"