[Council Region Groups]

In the Inaugural meeting there was no discussion of the region groups. The proposed Chapter regions as written on the meeting attendance are attached below (it's also on the homepage of the Council website). No action was taken, however, Chapters can now weigh in on whether or not they want these three regions: North, Central, and South. Some Chapters may want to be in a different group. If so, please add your comment (Reply) here on the Forum.

I believe Group #3 from the Lakeland pre-Council meeting was assigned to suggest some options for regions. Did anyone do that? If so, please post them here or let us know what you talked about regarding regions.
Lakeland Workgroups: http://council.fnpschapters.org/data/uploads/documents/council-groups.pdf

The Sparkleberry Chapter leaders have been in conversation with some other Reps and proposed smaller and more local region groups so that people can travel and meet face to face in active regional work groups. They suggest more regions than just North, Central, and South, such as as Northwest, Northeast, etc. Here is the place to weigh in with your thoughts and preferences about region groups and their purpose and their connection and coordination with the Council and FNPS as a whole. Make your case here on the Forum for what you think the regions should be.

After a discussion about region groups, someone may want to propose a Forum vote regarding the regions, so that this discussion can result in the formation of the region groups along the lines of what most Chapter Representatives prefer.

[Re: Council Region Groups another try]

Please  everyone who wants to see regional groups , stop an think how we should arrange this.
the 3  groups  proposed, north, central and south are a suggestion not set in stone. 
Make your own arrangement of our chapters and post it here, so we can discuss it
Julie Becker
Ok , everyone, i have been sent another set up for regional groups that is more geographic.
 They are attached below , Please look at them and be ready to discuss at the on line meeting

[Re: Council Region Groups-proposed geographic regions]

see attached

[6 Regions Proposal Correction]

One member has pointed out that the Mangrove Chapter in Julie's post should be in Charlotte County.

Thank you for the correction.

[Re: Council Region Groups]

Hello, After a quick review of lists provided here/above. I think the six regions suggestion to be the most reasonable for actually working together on local/regional issues. It takes into account the difficulty of east and west of original groups being able to meet regularly, as across state travel is at least 5-6 hours, whereas travel between the regions in a more compact easterly and westerly area is aided by I 95 and I 75 in the south region. Hope that is true for the northern regions, but that should be the goal, that it would only take an hour or so to travel.

The focus on the original initiatives can then be addressed with more regional nuances.

Evenly divided numbers of membership doesn't need to be the main goal as much as being able to work together. (Seems to me.)

Hope you get more than 20 chapter reps to weigh in on these matters at the next meeting!!  Regards

[Re: Council Region Groups]

Good input Joan. 

[Re: Council Region Groups]

The SOP Committee is proposing the follow for Region Group guidance in the Council Standard Operating Procedures.

"Council Region Groups
"Chapters will be encouraged to communicate, cooperate, and coordinate activities and share materials for their mutual benefit. Cooperation among Chapters in proximity may be especially helpful and may take many different forms. Some regions may want to establish times and places to meet together to discuss these shared efforts and, over time, these meetings may become conventions. Sharing success with regional groups or coordinated activities at Council meetings may be part of encouraging them."