Toastmasters International

Approved Proposal
Report
on
Considerations and Recommendations
for
Re-Alignment of Clubs
and
Re-formation and Transition
of
District 27 into Two New Districts

Reflecting Proposals Approved by the District 27 Executive Committee

on April 1, 2010

This “Approved Proposal” Report reflects considerations and recommendations, approved by the District
27 Executive Committee (DEC) on April 1, 2010, for moving forward with the re-formation and transition
of District 27 into two newly formed districts. This includes DEC-approved recommendations for
transition and club re-alignment for the 2010-2011 administrative year. It is submitted by the District 27
Governor to the District 27 Council and Toastmasters International Executive Committee.

After approval of the proposal for re-formation by the District 27 Council on May 8, 2010, a report on the
“Recommended Re-formation and Transition of District 27” will be forwarded by the District Governor to
Toastmasters International with the specific approved recommendations for boundaries, along with
recommendation for the transition year to begin July 1, 2010 and the re-formation of District 27 into two
newly formed districts to become effective July 1, 2011.

Respectfully submitted on April 8, 2010 on behalf of the

District 27 Alignment and Transition Committee (ATC)
by
ATC Chairman Joe Jarzombek, DTM, PID
sjoejazz@aol.com or D27ATC@gmail.com
C 703 627-4644 // H 703 878-1177

See full report at District 27 Alignment and Transition website http://d27tm.bravocg.com

[includes 3-page Summary, 11-page Report, 10 Appendices in 21 pages, plus 10-page Alignment Spreadsheet]
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Re-alignment and Re-formation Summary Package for District 27 Council Delegates

Having successfully built and sustained a growing network of more than 225 clubs, aligned in 47 areas and ten
divisions, District 27 now has over 4500 members. Twenty years ago District 27 was created as a separate
district as a result of the re-formation of District 36. Now, District 27 is one of seven districts within Toastmasters
International (TI) currently planning for our own split and re-formation into two separate districts. This D27
Council Delegates’ information package provides key parts of the Final “Approved Proposal” Report from the
Alignment and Transition Committee (ATC) that has been approved by the District Executive Committee with
specific recommendations to the District 27 Council for moving forward with the re-alignment of clubs and re-
formation of District 27 into two new districts. All information, including the full report has been publicly available
via ATC website at http://d27tm.bravocg.com. This package includes:
1. This introduction page summarizing ATC recommendations and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),
2. Table of contents of the ATC report sent to the District 27 Council and TI Executive Committee,
3. Summary of ATC Report with proposals for re-alignment of clubs and re-formation of District 27,
4. FAQs with answers (from Appendix E of the ATC Report),
5. Time Line for Re-Alignment, Transition, & Re-Formation of District 27 into Two Newly Formed Districts
6. ATC Report Appendix J on re-alignment of clubs with the 10-page Re-Alignment proposal spreadsheet.
FAQs answered are those asked by those participating in Q: How long has information been available and
Town Hall meetings and on-line discussions. public forums offered to enable participation in
Q: Why plan now to split & re-form into two districts? the decision-making process that has resulted
Q: What have other large districts done that applies? in recommendations for re-alignment of clubs
Q: When would District “re-formation” occur? and re-formation into two separate districts?
Q: How will this affect District elections on May 8, 2010? Answer: Since Dec 2009 the D27 Alignment and
Q: What decisions have already been made? Transition Committee (ATC) has made information
Q: Is “Re-Alignment” different from “Re-Formation”? publicly available and invited participation in
Q: How does “re-alignment” relate to “re-formation”? analyzing alternatives, and it has provided detailed,
Q: What has occurred and will happen in the near term? updated information via Town Hall meetings,
Q: How would the split be determined? Newsletter articles, postcards and the ATC website.
Q. Where would the boundary be to delineate the split
between the two newly formed districts? What is the difference between the top options for re-formation?
Q. Why is Re-formation Proposal G the one being recommended for adoption by the D27 Council?
Q. Why are Divisions in the western part of District 27 fewer in number yet larger in terms of clubs and territory
than Divisions in the eastern part of D27, and are there plans to change that?
Q: How would District “re-formation” affect my club?
Q: Which newly-formed District would my club be in?
Q: Which newly-formed District would I be in?
Q: Why not wait to re-form into two districts?
Q. What has been provided for consideration prior to voting at the District Council?
Q: Where has information been made publicly available? How have members provided input to the process?
Q. How will the voting process be conducted for the District Council to approve re-
alignment and re-formation proposals and elect district officers? What is being
recommended by the Alignment & Transition Committee (ATC) and District
Executive Committee? Answer: As a result of four months of analysis and public
deliberation through the various District 27 committees, the ATC and DEC recommend that
on May 8, 2010 the District 27 Council (in this order) vote to:
1. Approve the 2010-2011 Re-Alignment of Clubs.
2. Recommend to TI Executive Committee proceeding with Re-Formation of District 27 (to
split into two districts);
3. Recommend to TI making effective date of Re-Formation (1 July 2011 with transition to
begin 1 July 2010);
4. Recommend to TI the specific District Re-Formation boundaries to be as specified in
Proposal G using the Potomac River up to the Wilson Bridge, west-northwest along I-495,
east on I-66, north along the Arlington County Line, back to the Potomac River going west;
5. Recommend to TI designating all District 27 territory east of the boundary as “District
27” and all District 27 territory west of the boundary as “District 29”.
6a & 7. Elect District Officers for 2010-2011 year (one DG, two LGETs, two LGMs and ten
Division Governors).

Page 1 of 12
 ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Table of Contents
Summary for Proposals with Recommendations for Re-Alignment, Re-Formation and Transition. . . . . . . . . . 2

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Needs Analysis and Rationale for Re-formation of District 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
a. Benefits attributable to re-formation into two smaller districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1) Factors contributing to the district’s need to Re-form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2) The ways District Re-formation would better serve clubs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3) Reasons Re-formation would be in the best interests of Toastmasters International. . . . . 6
b. Considerations for Geography and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
c. Current Strength in Numbers, Growth Potential and Future Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Re-formation Options Being Considered (Down-selected Viable Proposals/Options). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
a. Conformance with TI Policy and Objectives for Re-formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
b. Proposals for District 27-East and District 27-West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1) Decision-Matrix Criteria for Rating/Ranking Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2) Re-Formation Proposal “A” -- Using western I-495 beltway and Potomac River. . . . . . . . . 8
3) Re-Formation Proposal “G” – Using I-495/I-66, Arlington County line & Potomac River. . . 9
4) Comparison of Top Two Options resulting in selection of Proposal G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5) Other Proposals Considered but Not Selected for Re-Formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Communication and Socialization of Re-formation – Meetings and Information Resources. . . . . . . . . . . 10
a. District-wide Efforts to Inform All Members and Enable Coordination & Transparency . . . . . . . . 10
b. Facilitation by the District Alignment and Transition Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Strategy for Division and Transition to Re-formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Considerations for Alignment Changes during the Transition Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. District Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
c. Planning for District Transition Operating Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
d. Service to Clubs and Areas to be Improved with Reduced Span of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
e. Challenges and Opportunities during Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Leadership Support and Accomplishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Quality of Service Leadership / Continuity of Leadership Pool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1) Organized Growth and Leadership Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2) Leadership Involvement with Transition Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3) Coordination with Leadership Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
b. Support from Current and Past Leaders to the Proposed New Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Timeline for Approval and Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
a. Reporting to the District and Toastmasters International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
b. Reporting Requirements of the District 27 Alignment and Transition Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
c. Re-alignment, Transition, and Re-formation Timeline for 2009-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
d. Related Voting and Approval by District 27 Council and District Executive Committee (DEC). . . 14
8. Funding Apportionment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. District Number Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix A – Decision Matrix with Criteria for Rating/Ranking Alternative Proposals for Re-Formation . . . . 16
Appendix B – Re-Formation Proposal “A” for D27-East & D27-West using western I-495 & Potomac River. . 18
Appendix C – Re-Formation Proposal “G” - D27 Split as I-495/I-66, Arlington County line & Potomac River . 20
Appendix D – Communication Plan for Coordination and Socialization of Re-Alignment and Re-Formation. . 23
Appendix E – Frequently Asked Questions with Answers about District 27 Re-Alignment and Reformation. . 26
Appendix F – Time line for Re-Alignment, Transition, and Re-Formation of District 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix G – Strategic and Operational Visioning for District Governance HPL Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix H – District 27 Council Voting/Approval Process associated with Re-Alignment & Re-Formation. . 33
Appendix I – Summary of Recommendations for Re-Alignment, Re-Formation and Transition of District 27. 34
Appendix J – Re-Alignment of Clubs for July 2010 – June 2011 to Support Members and District Transition. 35

These summaries and appendices included in this Delegates’ Package – see ATC website for full report

Page 2 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Summary for Proposal with Recommendations for Re-Alignment, Re-Formation and Transition

District 27 is one of seven large districts currently planning to split and re-form into two separate districts. In 20
years District 27 has continued to grow from 111 clubs to more than 225 clubs. These clubs are aligned in ten
Divisions serving over 4,500 members. Another ten clubs are expected to be chartered in the next few months.
To continue to serve the needs of members and sustain the growing network of clubs, District 27 must re-form
into two districts because it has reached a size that creates challenges for volunteer leaders upon whom our
members rely for services. These growth challenges stretch span of control and demand much time spent of
those providing services in meetings and in some of the nation’s most congested traffic, away from family,
business, and other community commitments. The growth has required more road time of district officers;
taking away time for Toastmaster programs, such as supporting clubs, supervising training, mentoring leaders,
motivating goal achievement, attending contests, and managing conferences. Being in one of the fastest
growing regions in the United States, D27 clubs draw from a commuter-based population of over 10 million
people in Washington D.C., southern suburban Maryland, and northern Virginia. This population base could
contribute to a membership capable of sustaining over 300 clubs in two viable districts. D27 leaders believe it
would be faster to achieve and sustain this growth if the District were to divide and pursue these objectives
under the leadership of two district teams. General consensus is “it is not a matter of if or when to split, but
where to draw the boundary;” so re-formation planning has continued with broad involvement and socialization.

Having submitted a Letter of Inquiry to TI on November 10, 2009 about District 27 Re-formation, and received
tentative approval to proceed with planning, the D27 Governor John Lesko appointed Past International Director
Joe Jarzombek to serve as Chairman of the D27 Alignment and Transition Committee (ATC) with a dual focus
to consider the 2010-2011 alignment of clubs and the longer term transition for re-formation of the District.
District-wide socialization began on December 3, 2009 when the District 27 Executive Committee (DEC)
approved the proposed strategy with plans for socializing the discussion and decision-making process, including
means by which the ATC facilitates collaboration efforts via LiveMeetings supported by the ATC website at
http://d27tm.bravocg.com to provide public access to all related documents, relevant articles, and FAQs. The
DEC concurred with the plan to submit an interim report to TI on December 21, 2009 and approved the
submittal of one viable option for splitting District 27 into two districts – East and West – using the Potomac
River and western I-495 beltway as the dividing boundary. Proposal “A” was preferred because it leveraged the
current division structures which have been used for club alignments and leadership development since 2006.

Based on the current location of clubs and constraints attributable to geography and transportation, any viable
proposed re-formation of District 27 would necessarily be an East-West split with the only question being where
to make the boundary delineation. A decision-matrix has been used to prioritize the nine proposals submitted
for consideration. Applying the criteria to the nine proposals enabled a rating/ranking of the options. Results
are presented in the Decision-Matrix with more detail offered in the appendices of this report and the ATC web
site along with rationale for selection or non-selection. Only Proposals “A” and “G” submitted rated a status of

GREEN for ALL criteria; as such, these two are described in more detail in appendices of this report.
Decision Matrix with Criteria for Rating/Ranking Alternative Proposals for Re-Formation

= GREEN Conform with TI re- Within scope Reduce travel Leverage current Champion with

= YELLOW formation policies control of District requirements for D27 Division a team
 = RED & objectives 27 both districts structure
Proposal A





Proposal B


 
Proposal C  



Proposal D





Proposal E





Proposal F




Proposal G





Proposal H


 
Proposal I


 

Analysis and socialization of proposals for District re-formation were conducted December 2009 – March 2010,
including communication with clubs and officers in Town Hall meetings at TLI club officer training sessions. The
only difference between the two top Proposals (A and G) is territory within current Division B inside western I-
495 beltway, north of I-66 and west of the Arlington County line. This territory and the nine clubs currently
aligned in Areas B5 and B6 would be in either D27-East (with Proposal A) or D27-West (with Proposal G).

Because of the high number of commuters in this region, it is estimated that 1.5 – 2.5 million commuters (of the
10 million population) provide a common population base that would continue to support membership in both

Page 3 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

D27-East and D27-West, regardless of which proposed east-west split is selected. Data from the TI current
membership database and new club charters (expected this administrative year) was used along with data from
US Census population statics for Washington D.C., southern suburban Maryland, and northern Virginia to
determine club/membership/population splits and ratios. The newly formed D27-East, though geographically
smaller than D27-West, would draw upon a much larger commuter-based population.
Proposal A presents a viable split Proposal G presents a viable split Commuter-based
that would have a starting base of: that would have a starting base of: population of:
D27-East: 2,497+ memberships in 130+ clubs 2,368+ memberships in 122+ clubs 6.7 million
D27-West: 2,128+ memberships in 104+ clubs 2,257+ memberships in 113+ clubs 4.5 million
* Proposal G provides a more balanced start for both newly-formed districts in terms of numbers of memberships and clubs.

Proposal A – “using the western I-495 beltway and Potomac Proposal A uses I-495
& Potomac river
River” – D27-East would be east of the Potomac River and
inside the I-495 Beltway and it would be composed of the current
Divisions A, B, C, D, E, and J. D27-West would be west of the
Potomac River and outside western I-495 beltway, and it would
be composed of the current Divisions F, G, H and I.
Proposal G – “using western I-495, I-66, Arlington County
line, and Potomac River" – As a variation from Proposal A,
this would split the current Division B along I-66 and the
Arlington County line. The dividing line for District re-formation
would be the Potomac River, the western I-495, up to I-66 east,
and northeast along the Arlington County line, back to the
Potomac River; putting the north part of the current Division B in D27-
West. D27-East would be east of that boundary composed of current
Divisions A, C, D, E, J, and the southern part of Division B (Areas
B1/2/3/4 south of the I-66). D27-West would be west of that boundary,
and it would be composed of the current Divisions F, G, H, I, and
northern part of Division B (Areas B5/6 north of the I-66 and west of the
Arlington County line).
Difference between Proposals A and G for District Re-formation.
Proposal G emerged as the preferred proposed recommendation for
re-formation as a result of feedback from members about Proposal A
and the other proposals. This is because Tysons Corner would be Proposal G difference puts north of I-66 &
west of Arlington County line in D27 West
kept together under Proposal G in the same district, D27-West (not
split by I-495). With both proposals, each of the two newly-formed districts would start the 2010-2011 year
consistent with TI objectives for sustainability and growth with more than 100 clubs. However, with Proposal G,
60% of the members in clubs in Areas B5/B6 live west of the I-495; so their residences would be closer to future
district-level events in D27-West. Moreover, Proposal G provides a more balanced start for both newly-formed
districts in terms of numbers of memberships and clubs. Both Proposals A & G use the Potomac River and
western I-495 as the boundaries for the split of District 27; yet Proposal G includes territory inside the beltway
that is north of I-66 and west of the Arlington County line as part of the new western district.
Re-Alignment for July 2010 - June 2011 to Better Support Clubs and District Transition to Re-Formation.
Each Division submitted recommendations for club re-alignment within the Division. The ATC consolidated the
input and ensured the D27 club re-alignment proposal is consistent with the district re-formation proposal and
conforms to TI Policies and Procedures, Sections B 2 and VIB1 relative to the “Assignment of Clubs to Districts,
Division and Areas” and “Re-formation of Districts” along with Article VI of the District Administrative Bylaws.
Consistent with D27 guidance, the ATC kept ten Divisions for the 2010-2011 Alignment and, based on needs of
clubs aligned within Areas, has recommended changes to geographic boundaries of Divisions, and ensured
alignment objectives considered proximity and strength of clubs. The proposed 2010-2011 Alignment aligns
clubs that have moved meeting locations to be in the appropriate Divisions, and in three cases, the correct
District (District 36). The re-alignment recommendation includes changing borders between Division D & E;
aligning Area E2 clubs in Division D; making all of Washington DC SouthEast within Division D. The boundary
between Divisions C and D will be concurrently adjusted; making all of Washington DC SouthWest (west of the
Anacostia River) within Division C. Similarly, there is a minor adjustment of boundaries between Divisions A
and J. Consistent with Proposal G for re-formation, the northern boundary for Division B is changed to I-66 and
the Arlington County line; keeping four Areas in Division B and re-aligning two Areas B5/B6 into Division H.
Page 4 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Although it is anticipated that the four divisions within D27-West could potentially become five divisions effective
July 1, 2011 with the re-formation, there has been a desire to keep the current four Divisions during the
transition year, such that District 27 would continue to have no more than ten Divisions for the coming
administrative year (preventing larger District-level contests and mitigating some span of control issues).
The ATC has been coordinating with the D27 Marketing Team and the respective Divisions to determine if any
“not yet paid” clubs will renew or drop their charters this year. As of April 1, 2010, eight clubs had yet to pay Oct
2009 dues (to retain their charter). Therefore, factoring in the known “not yet paid” clubs and the possible “in the
pipeline” newly chartering clubs, the ATC, in coordination with the District Steering Committee and District
Executive Committee recommends the proposed alignment of clubs for the administrative year of July 1, 2010 –
June 30, 2011 (detailed in Re-Alignment spreadsheets) to be consistent with plans for District 27 re-formation:
Proposed District 27 Alignment (1 July 2010) with ~ memberships:
D27-East Division A will have 23 clubs in 4 Areas 398 With re-formation:
D27-East Division B will have 21 clubs in 4 Areas 390
D27-East Division C will have 21 clubs in 4 Areas 498 D27-East would start with
~2368 memberships in
D27-East Division D will have 19 clubs in 3 Areas 378
6 Divisions/ 23 Areas/ 122 Clubs
D27-East Division E will have 19 clubs in 4 Areas 332
D27-East Division J will have 19 clubs in 4 Areas 372 and
D27-West Division F will have 29 clubs in 6 Areas 590
D27-West Division G will have 22 clubs in 4 Areas 440 D27-West would start with
D27-West Division H will have 32 clubs in 7 Areas 678 ~2277 memberships in
D27-West Division I will have 30 clubs in 6 Areas 549 4 Divisions/ 23 Areas/ 113 Clubs

As a follow-up to the Interim Report submitted to TI on Dec 21, 2009, a subsequent “Update Report” reflected
considerations and recommendations approved by the District 27 Executive Committee on February 4, 2010. TI
President then approved the planning efforts. After more coordination and socialization, this DEC-approved
report of the D27 ATC, recommending the “Approved Proposal,” has been forwarded by the District Governor to
the District 27 Council and TI Executive Committee. On May 8, 2010, the District 27 Council will vote on re-
alignment and re-formation and elect District Officers for the 2010-2011 administrative year.
The ATC recommendation, approved in all parts by the DEC on April 1, 2010, is that the
District 27 Council vote to: 1 approve the “2010-2011 Re-Alignment of clubs” (as proposed
by ATC & DEC); 2 recommend to TI Executive Committee proceeding with Re-Formation;
3 recommend the effective date of Re-Formation as 1 July 2011 with transition to begin 1
July 2010; 4 recommend the proposed District Re-Formation Boundaries (as specified in
Proposal G), and 5 recommend designating all District 27 territory east of the boundary as
“District 27” and all District 27 territory west of the boundary as “District 29”.
With approval by TI Executive Committee of the re-formation of District 27 to be effective July
2011, the District 27 Council could then proceed with election of the District Officers for 2010-
2011 year (one District Governor, two LGETs, two LGMs and ten Division Governors). [Two
sets of LtGovs are permitted during the transition year for Districts going through the process
of re-formation.] Because only the TI Executive Committee can approve re-formation, a pre-
coordinated procedure will have been agreed upon by the TI President and Executive Director
th
before the May 8 District Council meeting to preclude an extensive recess after the District
Council approves the recommended re-formation and before election of District Officers.
After the District 27 Council vote to approve the proposal for re-formation on May 8, 2010, a report on the
“Recommended Re-formation and Transition of District 27” will be forwarded by the D27 Governor to TI with
specific approved recommendations for boundaries, along with recommendation for the transition to begin July
1, 2010 and the re-formation of District 27 into two newly formed districts to become effective July1, 2011. The
district transition operating structured is planned. In September 2010 the District 27 Governor will send a Re-
formation Progress Report to the TI Executive Director. Upon completion of re-formation actions as planned,
the two newly-formed districts would be separate administrative entities of TI on July 1, 2011.
In the last several years District 27 has demonstrated its commitment to achievement of Toastmaster goals.
With its leadership development efforts and organization for growth, District 27 has groomed leaders who are
more likely to volunteer for higher leadership roles in two districts that are less daunting in size and better
positioned to continue to support the evolving needs of clubs and members.

Page 5 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Appendix E
Frequently Asked Questions with Answers about District 27 Re-alignment and Re-formation
(more information at http://d27tm.bravocg.com)

Having successfully built and sustained a growing network of more than 225 clubs, aligned in 47 areas and ten
divisions, District 27 is currently the tenth largest district in the world with over 4500 members. Twenty years ago
District 27 (D27) was created as a separate district from the re-formation of District 36. Today, we are one of
seven districts currently planning for our own split and re-formation into two separate districts.
Q: Why plan now to split & re-form into two districts?
A: District 27 is now a size that creates challenges for volunteer leaders; stretching span of control, demanding
much time on the road and in meetings – all away from business and family; jeopardizing support to clubs.
Clubs rely on efforts of volunteers to serve in district-level positions to continue to provide training, contests, and
conferences -- to support the needs of members.

Q: What have other large districts done that applies?

A: D27 has learned from other districts that have split and the six larger districts in the process of re-forming.
D27 has coordinated with TI and obtained re-formation plans from other districts. Lessons learned have helped;
yet comparisons and analysis of other districts’ circumstances have resulted in a determination that the needs of
D27 should prioritize decisions for D27 re-formation plans.
Q: When would District “re-formation” occur?
A: Re-formation would only become effective July 1, 2011 after approval by both our District Council and TI’s
Board of Directors Executive Committee. We will remain a single district throughout the remainder of the
current TM-year (today - June 30, 2010) and continue to be a single district during the July 2010-June 2011
Transition year.
Q: How will this affect District elections in the spring?
A: At the May 2010 Council meeting in selecting officers for “the transition year” we will need to elect one District
Governor and four Lieutenant Governors to serve our members and clubs. During the transition year there will
be a LGET and LGM team to serve roughly half our clubs and another LGET and LGM team serving the other
half. There is likely to be two times the number of opportunities to volunteer to serve on district committees.
[Note: TI only allows two sets LGMs/LGETs for districts during the transition year prior to re-formation.]
Q: What decisions have already been made?
A: Having received approval to proceed with planning for re-formation, D27 Governor tasked the D27 Alignment
& Transition Committee (ATC) with a dual focus to consider the 2010-2011 alignment of clubs and the longer
term transition for re-formation of the District. TI Executive Director gave the Go-Ahead for District 27 to proceed
with the formal needs assessment and transition planning to re-form into two districts. Interim reports sent to TI
on Dec 21, 2009 demonstrated a feasible option for re-formation. On April 1, 2010, the District 27 Executive
Committee approved re-alignment and re-formation recommendations and recommended approval to the
District 27 Council.

Q: Is “Re-Alignment” different from “Re-Formation”?

A: Yes, these are not different words for the same thing. “Re-Alignment” is a District-level decision concerning
the assignment of clubs to Areas within Divisions. On an annual basis District Councils review the alignment of
clubs within their boundaries to determine how best to continue to provide requisite services to those clubs.
District Councils approve re-alignment of clubs. “Re-Formation” is a TI Executive Committee decision. It is an
administrative action to ensure sustainable growth of the network of clubs. On a periodic basis, TI reviews the
numbers of clubs within Districts and Regions to determine if re-formation of any District or Region is needed.
Any District with more than 240 clubs is considered for re-formation, and any District with more than 200 clubs
may request consideration for re-formation by submitting a re-formation letter of inquiry. Seven Districts are
currently scheduled for re-formation or have re-formation inquiries. Toastmasters International will globally re-
form into fourteen Regions on July 1, 2010.

Q: How does “re-alignment” relate to “re-formation”?

A: Consistent with TI policies and by-laws, the District 27 Council annually determines the alignment of clubs.
Ten Divisions are expected to serve the needs of District 27 thru June 2011. Re-alignment of clubs and re-
formation of the District is being addressed this year to continue to serve the needs of our members and
volunteer leaders. We do not envision the creation of any new Divisions or addition of Areas. Based on several
factors relative to support of clubs, there will be minor changes in alignment of new clubs and of clubs that have

Page 6 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

changed their meeting location. There will be some adjustments of boundaries between Divisions. All re-
alignment proposals reflect the input from the respective Divisions. Only TI’s Board of Directors Executive
Committee may approve re-formation of districts from existing districts. That would be done with the input of
recommendations from the District 27 Council.

Q: What has occurred & will happen in the near term?

A: Starting in December 2009, District 27 Leadership and ATC members have been reaching out to engage all
interested members and make the deliberation process as transparent as possible. Newsletter articles and
postcards were sent to all members of District 27. D27 ATC website, online blogs, and webcast made up-to-
date information readily available. FAQ “Fact Sheets” have been distributed on-line and at TLIs, Town Hall
meetings and contests. ATC LiveMeetings have been held twice a month in which anyone could participate.
More Town Hall Meetings will be held 20 April and 8 May. Interim Reports have been provided and made
publicly available. During January - April 2010, District 27 has continued to refine our needs assessment and
our analyses of re-alignment and re-formation options. Recommendations and updates have been presented to
the Past District Governors Advisory Committee, District Steering Committee and District Executive Committee
(DEC) to seek interim approval and feedback. All stakeholders have been invited to participate in discussions
with requests to provide input and review. DEC-approved recommendations of the ATC were made on April 1,
2010 to the District 27 Council for approval on May 8, 2010.

Q: How would the split be determined?

A: Based on the current location of clubs and constraints attributable to geography and transportation, any
viable proposed split of District 27 would necessarily be an East-West split with the only question being where to
make the boundary delineation. Each of these two newly formed districts would start the July 2010 Transition
year with at least 100 clubs consistent with TI objectives for growth potential and sustainability. Each new district
would draw from a population base such that there are over 30,000 people for each club in the new districts.
Q. Where would the boundary be to delineate the split between the two
newly formed districts? What is the difference between the top
options for re-formation?
A. Nine proposals for re-formation were rated, and only two of the proposals
(A & G) rated “green” go-ahead for all decision criteria; so those two
represent the top options: Proposal A – “using western I-495 beltway
and Potomac River” – D27-East would be east of Potomac River & inside
the I-495 Beltway and would be com-posed of the current Divisions A, B, C,
D, E, and J. D27-West would be west of the Potomac River and outside
western I-495 beltway, and it would be composed of the current Divisions F,
G, H and I. Proposal G – “using Arlington County Line/I-66/ I-495
beltway and Potomac River" – As a variation of Proposals A, this would
split the current Division B along I-66 and Arlington County Line. That
dividing line for the District re-formation would put the north part of the
current Division B in D27-West. D27-East would be composed of the
current Divisions A, C, D, E, J, and the southern part of Division B (Areas
B1/2/3/4 south of the I-66 and east of the Arlington County Line). D27-
West would be west of that boundary and would be composed of the
current Divisions F, G, H, I, and the northern part of Division B (Areas
B5/6). Re-formation Proposal G is recommended by the ATC and DEC.
Q. Why is Re-formation Proposal G the one being recommended for
adoption by the D27 Council?
A. Proposal G offers the most balanced and equitable distribution of clubs and members for the two newly
formed districts. It is conformant with TI objectives and policies for re-formation of the district. After applying the
decision criteria for rating/ranking proposals and vetting the nine proposals among members of the ATC, DEC
and District Steering Committee, the ATC recommends Proposal G for adoption, and the DEC recommends its
adoption because it provides the most balanced start in terms of clubs and members. It keeps Tysons Corner
together in the same district, D27-West (not split by I-495 as would Proposal A). Also, 60% of the members in
Areas B5/B6 live west of the I-495; so their residences would be closer to future district-level events.
Q. Will my District be a National Capitol District?
A. There is no such distinction as a national capital district recognized by TI. There are some who take pride in
the fact that a part of the Capital is in their district. D27-East (most likely to retain the District 27) would have the

Page 7 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

US Capital, as would District 36. D27 has asked that the new D27-West district be numbered District 29 for
several reasons found at ATC http://d27tm.bravocg.com.
Q. Is there any problem with much of our newly formed Districts being in small or rural communities?
A. Much of our current District 27 is composed of territory in small communities, and most of our clubs are in
the larger cities. This would continue to be true for D27-East or D27-West based on the proposed East-West
split. In fact, the ratio of corporate to community-based clubs is roughly the same East and West. The
proposed split provides a nice balance.
Q. Why are Divisions in the western part of D27 fewer in number yet larger in terms of clubs and territory
than Divisions in the eastern part of D27, and are there plans to change that?
A. Re-alignment recommendations would have proposed to create 5 or 6 Divisions from the current 4 western
Divisions to bring them more in line with the size of eastern Divisions in terms of the number of clubs and
territory. However, that would have meant District 27 would have 11 or 12 Divisions for the Transition Year
before re-formation; creating a challenge for district-level contests. Therefore, that action would be postponed
until re-formation is effective on July 2011 when District 27 would be split with 6 Divisions in D27-East and 5 or 6
Divisions in D27-West.
Q: How would District “re-formation” affect my club?
A: Most likely you’ll see an increase in service because it would be in a geographically smaller district with fewer
clubs. District events, such as TLIs and conferences, would on average be closer to where your clubs meet.
Q: Which newly-formed District would my club be in?
A: TI administratively assigns clubs to districts in which the club physically meets. In general, clubs meeting in
Divisions A/B/C/D/E/J boundaries would be in D27-East. Clubs meeting in Divisions F/G/H/I would be in D27-
West. Proposal G would only alter that for clubs in Areas B5/B6; putting them in D27-West. Assignment of clubs
that meet in more than one location would be based on club’s mailing address if meeting location is not
specified. This is an administrative action; clubs do not move meeting locations because of re-alignment or re-
formation actions.
Q: Which newly-formed District would I be in?
A: Independent of residence, your affiliation with TI is determined by your membership in club(s). Members of
more than one club could potentially be a member of both newly-formed districts. Individuals may join clubs and
attend TLIs, contests, and conferences in any district.

Q: Why not wait to re-form into two districts?

A: Postponing the May 8 decision to re-form effective July 2011 means waiting at least one additional year, and
it increases risks that support to clubs will suffer. District 27 is now a size that creates span of control challenges
for volunteer leaders upon whom clubs rely on to continue to support the needs of members. Waiting to decide
to split will not improve the information needed to make decisions relative to re-formation, and the District
Council next year will be composed of mostly new members who would have to go through the learning process
and deliberation process. Information about re-formation has been available since Dec 2009, and all D27
members have been sent two newsletters in Dec 2009 and Mar 2010 and a postcard in Feb 2010 with
information about plans to re-form. Although necessary for the continued success of Toastmaster programs in
this geographical territory, re-formation planning and socialization is disruptive and intrusive on the normal
operations of a district, and therefore takes away some support to clubs. No significant benefits have been
attributed to waiting to make the decision or for when re-formation should become effective. However, several
unfavorable consequences have been identified if re-formation is postponed beyond the proposed time of July
2011. It is not a matter of “if” we are to re-align & re-form; it is a matter of how we want to control our destiny:
continuing to support our clubs; managing a sustainable growth of clubs; providing leadership opportunities that
don’t require such daunting challenges imposed by a large District. We have a chance to recommend when and
how to re-form, along with recommending the borders and District numbers. Members of the District 27 Council
are requested to approve this year on May 8, 2010 the recommendations for re-alignment and re-formation.

Q. How will the voting process be conducted for the District Council to approve re-alignment and re-
formation proposals and elect district officers? What is being recommended by the Alignment &
Transition Committee (ATC) and District Executive Committee?
A. On May 8, 2010, the District 27 Council will be asked to first vote on re-alignment and re-formation prior to
electing district officers for next year. The sequenced order of items is significant since the outcome of previous
votes influence the options for subsequent voting. Regarding re-alignment and re-formation, the District Council

Page 8 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

(in this order) will vote on: 1 the 2010-2011 Re-Alignment of clubs, 2 proceeding
with Re-Formation, 3 the effective date of Re-Formation (1 July 2011 with
transition to begin 1 July 2010), 4 the District Re-Formation Boundaries, and 5
the designated number for each newly formed District. Because only the TI
Executive Committee can approve re-formation, a pre-coordinated procedure will
th
have to be agreed upon by the TI Executive Director before the May 8 District
Council meeting. Otherwise, before District Officers could be elected, a recess
would be required after the District Council approves the recommendations for re-
formation. As a result of four months deliberation through the various District 27
committees, the ATC and DEC recommend that on May 8, 2010 the District 27
Council (in this order) vote to:

1. Approve the 2010-2011 Re-Alignment of Clubs.

2. Recommend to TI proceeding with Re-Formation (to split into two districts);
3. Recommend to TI making effective date of Re-Formation (1 July 2011 with
transition to begin 1 July 2010);
4. Recommend to TI the specific District Re-Formation boundaries to be as
specified in Proposal G using the Potomac River up to the Wilson Bridge, west-
northwest along I-495, east on I-66, north along the Arlington County Line, back to
the Potomac River going west;
5. Recommend to TI designating all District 27 territory east of the boundary as
“District 27” and all District 27 territory west of the boundary as “District 29”.
6a & 7. Elect District Officers for 2010-2011 year (one DG, two LGETs, two LGMs
and ten Division Govs).

Q. What has been & will be provided for consideration prior to voting at the District Council?
A. As a follow-up to the DEC-approved Interim Report submitted to TI on Dec 21, 2009, a subsequent “Update
Report” of Feb 4, 2010 and a “Proposal Report” of April 8, 2010 have been approved by the DEC. The
“Proposal Report” reflects DEC-approved proposals for re-alignment and re-formation with the specific
recommendations forwarded to the District 27 Council and TI Executive Committee. These proposals and
recommendations reflect the outcome of a four-month “coordination and socialization of options” deliberation
process. All clubs have had their interests represented in the District Executive Committee, and they have
Division representatives participating in the ATC. The reports, briefings, FAQs, and supporting material are all
publicly available via the ATC web site http://d27tm.bravocg.com. Relevant material will be provided in a
delegate’s package for voting members of the District 27 Council.

Q: Where has information been publicly available? How have members provided input to the process?
A: District 27 will continue to inform all members via multiple modes of communication: meetings, newsletters,
and online media. Planning and options for re-alignment and re-formation have been posted on the ATC web
site http://d27tm.bravocg.com that supports the ATC’s collaborative processes of sharing information by
displaying draft proposals, maps, statistics, and analysis. Relevant projects, committee reports, proposals and
recommendations continue to be available for review. Anyone can participate in ATC LiveMeetings and Town
Hall meetings offered multiple times through May 8, 2010.

SUMMARY: The 4-month coordination, analysis and socialization of re-alignment and re-formation with D27
committees and clubs has been a very deliberate effort to enable participation by all who care about the
continued success of the District in helping clubs successfully fulfill their mission to the members. Administrative
efforts to re-align clubs and re-form the District into two new districts are part of what Toastmasters International
does with other districts. Indeed, effective July 1, 2010, all TI regions will be re-formed into 14 Regions. Re-
formation is something that District 27 has had in motion for several years. It started planning with changes in
alignments from 6 to 8 Divisions and then from 8 to 10 Divisions; contributing to more deliberate leadership
mentoring needed for the sustained growth of the network of Toastmasters clubs. This re-formation of District
27 is simply a part of the success story, and it better ensures a more manageable span of control that would
continue to enable volunteer leaders to be more effective in serving constituent member clubs and members.
Rather than wait for District 27 to become too large to not continue distinguished service for its clubs and
members, re-formation is recommended now to be effective July 1, 2011 with transition to begin July 1, 2010.

Page 9 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Appendix F
Time Line for Re-Alignment, Transition, and Re-Formation of District 27 into Two Newly Formed Districts

The time line for re-alignment, transition, and re-formation is provided to enable stakeholder understanding and
participation in the process. The D27 ATC meets on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays via LiveMeetings.
ATC meetings are at 7pm on the advertised days via teleconference 1-616-597-8000 in 2009 and 1-760-569-
6000 in 2010 (user access code 466813# to join the call) with website http://d27tm.bravocg.com support.

2009 EVENT / ACTIVITY OUTCOME / FOLLOW-UP

10 Nov Letter of Inquiry to TI from District 27 Governor DG John Lesko follow-up with TI Exec Cmte
14 Nov District 27 Council meeting with DG appointment ATC tasked with responsibility to also consider
of Joe Jarzombek as ATC Chairman boundary changes for future growth
16 Nov Telephone call with Toastmasters International Preliminary Approval from Gary Schmidt to
President Gary Schmidt move forward with Re-formation planning
23 Nov Teleconference call with TI Executive Director, Preliminary Approval from Dan Rex to move
Dan Rex forward with Re-formation planning
3 Dec District 27 Executive Committee (DEC) briefed on Endorsement of planning efforts to move
Alignment and Transition planning forward and solicit support/participation
5 Dec District Governor meets with TI Exec Director Confirm planning actions
7 Dec Dan Rex brings request (letter of inquiry) to the TI Executive Director approval to proceed
Executive Committee meeting for approval.
8 Dec Alignment & Transition Committee teleconference ATC formalization, guidelines for operating, etc
12 Dec D27 informed of plans; draft material sent to ATC Incorporate comments in planning
members and others requesting information. considerations.
17 Dec ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Solicited options for re-alignment & re-formation
20 Dec ATC teleconference Interim Report Draft review
21 Dec D27 Interim Report proposal received by TI HQ; D27 Proposal to be included in agenda at the
for TI Executive Cmte “read ahead” package February 2010 TI Executive Cmte meeting
2010
5 Jan ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Update on proposals & analyses; FAQs; start
down-select of proposals;
12 Jan D27 Steering Committee meeting; provided draft Endorsement of planning efforts to move
of Update Report with plans for Feb forward and solicit support/participation
17 Jan D27 PDG Advisory Committee meeting. Endorsement of planning efforts; action items
21 Jan ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Socialization plans; action items
2 Feb ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Division Re-Alignment Proposals
4 Feb D27 DEC meeting DEC-approval of Update Report
13 Feb TI Board of Directors meeting OK to proceed with re-formation planning
18 Feb ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Refined re-alignment proposal for each Division
2 Mar ATC LiveMeeting e-mail exchanges Conveyed TI approval; action item follow-up
4 Mar D27 Steering Cmte mtg Approval of planning & closed proposal period
18 Mar ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Feedback on draft report; finalize proposals
30 Mar ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Final maps & draft report; review briefing slides
1 Apr D27 DEC mtg DEC-approved ATC report to District Council
15 Apr ATC LiveMeeting teleconference Final report provided to TI & District Council
22 Apr ATC LiveMeeting & D27 Town Hall LiveMeeting Final vetting with Q&A
8 May D27 Council meeting; approve Re-Alignment, Re- Approve Re-formation actions to transition into
formation, Boundaries; vote for 1 DG, 2 LGETs & two Districts; specified boundaries for the two
2 LGMs newly reformed districts
1 Jul Start of D27 administrative transition year with one DG, two LGETs & two LGMs
Sep Re-formation Progress Report submitted to TI Final approval from TI to re-form
Nov D27 Council meeting Status update on transition planning
2011
May D27 Council meeting (for both new districts) Vote for 2 DGs, 2 LGETs & 2 LGMs
1 Jul Start new administrative year Start as two separate, newly-formed Districts

Page 10 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Appendix J
Re--Alignment of Clubs for July 2010 – June 2011 to Support Clubs & District Transition to Re-Formation

The ATC has ensured that alignment proposals conform with TI Policies and Procedures, Section B 2 and
Section VIB1 relative to the “Assignment of Clubs to Districts, Division and Areas” and “Re-formation of Districts”
along with Article VI of the District Administrative Bylaws.

Consistent with guidance, the ATC has kept ten Divisions for the 2010-2011 Alignment and, based on needs of
clubs aligned within Areas, recommended changes to geographic boundaries of Divisions, and ensured
alignment objectives considered proximity and strength of clubs.

In preparation for the re-formation, the 2010-2011 Re-Alignment Proposal, approved by the District Executive
Committee, recommends aligning clubs that have moved meeting locations to be in the appropriate Divisions,
and (in three cases, the correct District). The re-alignment recommendation will include changing borders
between Division D & E; aligning Area E2 clubs in Division D; making all of Washington DC SouthEast within
Division D. The boundary between Divisions C and D will be concurrently adjusted; making all of Washington
DC SouthWest (west of the Anacostia River) within Division C. Similarly, there is a possibility a making minor
adjustment of boundaries between Divisions A and J. Since Proposal G is selected for re-formation, the
boundary for Division B would be changed to I-66 and Arlington County line; and keep four Areas in DivB and
re-align two Areas B5/B6 into DivH. Although it is anticipated that the four divisions within D27-West could
potentially become five divisions effective July 1, 2011 with the re-formation, there has been an expectation to
keep the current four Divisions during the transition year.

Overview of Re-Alignment changes.

Divisions A/J. Within DivA, military-based clubs were grouped together in AreaA1 because of tougher security
requirements. AreaA2 has Rt7 work clubs, and AreaA3 is Pentagon City & Crystal City. Potomac Yard North
and Community clubs were grouped together in AreaA4. The border between Division A and Division J is being
modified: between I-395 and Route 50, all of Route 7 is included in Division A, and between Columbia Pike and
I-395, the boundary is Seminary Road. Since Seven Corners is on Route 7, it is part of DivA. Park Center and
LUCKY are all north of Seminary, so they stay in Division A. This proposed alignment and boundary has been
mutually agreed upon by DivA and DivJ. Two clubs in DivJ, JUST SAY ITT! TM Club #1307401 and the new
chartering TISCOM club meet outside the Beltway and will be aligned in DivG next year.

Division C/D/E. The re-alignment recommendation will include changing borders between Division D & E;
aligning Area E2 clubs in Division D; making all of Washington DC SouthEast within Division D. The boundary
between Divisions C and D will be concurrently adjusted; making all of Washington DC SouthWest (west of the
Anacostia River) within Division C.

Division F/G/I. Clubs that have changed meeting locations to outside DivF (SRA and IBM) were re-aligned
within Areas in the appropriate Divisions B/I. DivG gained two from Div J (JUST SAY ITT! And TISCOM) that
meet within DivG (AreaG1). Traveling TasteMasters TMs will be re-aligned to Area F1 from Area H4

Divisions B/H. Clubs that require US citizenship were grouped into the same Area. DivB recommended and
attempted to group clubs based on similar meeting times. The northern boundary for Division B has been
changed to I-66 & Arlington County line, keeping four Areas in DivB and re-aligning two Areas B5/B6 into DivH.
The net result is DivH will have seven Areas for next year.

Although it is anticipated that the four divisions within D27-West could potentially become five divisions effective
July 1, 2011 with the re-formation, there was a strong desire to keep the current four Divisions for next year to
prevent issues with having 11 Divisions (and 11 contestants) during the transition year.

Clubs moving meeting locations outside of District 27.

Clubs that have moved or expected to move their meeting locations outside of District 27 before 1 July 2010
are: Talking Heads of State in Area C1, IBM Fair Lakes in F1 and Southern Talks in Area H2 have moved to
District 36 in Washington DC NW and College Park (the paperwork needs to be completed NLT 15 July 2010).
Global Transformers in Area A1 and Soaring Eagles TMs in Area A2 are both moving to Ft Meade Maryland in
District 18 next summer; so they should be in District 18 effective 1 July 2011.

Page 11 of 12
ATC Report/Proposals Approved by District Executive Committee for District 27 Re-Alignment, Re-formation and Transition

Clubs potentially not being considered for 2010-2011 Alignment because of non-payment of dues.

The ATC has been coordinating with the D27 Marketing Team and the respective Division Governors to
determine if certain clubs that have yet to pay their dues (in the indicated Areas) will renew or drop their charters
this year. As of March 2010, eight clubs had yet to pay Oct 2009 dues (to retain their charter): A3 Generally
Speaking, A3 Speak EZ NCB, B3 Courthouse, B4 AFOSR, H1 BE TMs, H2 Tysons Talkers, I3 Old Dominion,
and J4 Commonwealth Ave TMs. Moreover, a few other low member clubs are at risk of not renewing the April
2010 dues period.

Therefore, factoring in the known “not yet paid” clubs and the possible “in the pipeline” newly chartering clubs,
the ATC, in coordination with the District Steering Committee and District Executive Committee recommends the
proposed alignment of clubs for the administrative year of July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 to be consistent with
plans for District 27 re-formation:
Proposed District 27 Alignment (1 July 2010) with ~ memberships:
D27-East Division A will have 23 clubs in 4 Areas 398 With re-formation:
D27-East Division B will have 21 clubs in 4 Areas 390
D27-East Division C will have 21 clubs in 4 Areas 498 D27-East would start with
~2368 memberships in
D27-East Division D will have 19 clubs in 3 Areas 378
6 Divisions/ 23 Areas/ 122 Clubs
D27-East Division E will have 19 clubs in 4 Areas 332
D27-East Division J will have 19 clubs in 4 Areas 372 and
D27-West Division F will have 29 clubs in 6 Areas 590
D27-West Division G will have 22 clubs in 4 Areas 440 D27-West would start with
D27-West Division H will have 32 clubs in 7 Areas 678 ~2277 memberships in
D27-West Division I will have 30 clubs in 6 Areas 549 4 Divisions/ 23 Areas/ 113 Clubs

[See associated 10-page District 27 Re-Alignment Proposal Spreadsheets (with 1-page per
Division) to see the recommended re-alignment of clubs to be effective July 1, 2010.]

Page 12 of 12