Q11. What are the key benefits to state societies of the proposed Integrated model?
Q12. Is there room for adjusting the terms of the Integrated affiliation option to make it more attractive to state societies that feel disadvantaged by the current parameters?
Q13. What services is national currently providing to state societies and to three-tier members in our state?
Q14. When will members see the benefits of the Integrated model?
Q15. How were assumptions of state society tier placements made?
Q16. How was the calculation of the dues impact under the Integrated model made?
Q17. Can states unilaterally choose their service tier level?
Q18. Some state societies have expressed the desire for unilateral discretion to select their tier.
Q19. What happens if a state society disagrees with its current tier level? How will that be resolved?
Q20. How often will NSPE review the capacity tier rankings and move a state up or down? How much notice and say will a state get in this process?
Q21. Can I see the self-assessment answers and scores for other state societies?
Q22. Some state societies have expressed concern that the $299 single-price point is too high.
Q54. How does the $299 price point for unified national/state dues compare to other professional societies?
Q23. Can state societies that choose the Integrated form of affiliation continue to include optional dues check-offs (e.g.; scholarship donations, PAC contributions, etc.)?
Q24. Why is NSPE discontinuing current Enterprise Dues discounts?
Q25. Does elimination of Enterprise Dues discounts eliminate the possibility of state societies offering bulk, non-membership service offerings (e.g., to state agencies) that include access to continuing education or other NSPE benefits and services?
Q26. The dues increase is substantial for territorial societies (Guam and Puerto Rico). Should they be given special consideration?
Q48. How are future changes in dues (and dues splits) going to be handled? Will the state societies have input?
Q27. May a state electing the Integrated Model begin or continue to offer state-only membership to PE-eligible (PEs, engineering students, those on the PE track) individuals?
Q28. May a state electing the Integrated Model begin or continue to offer a state-only membership to a non-PE-eligible individual (i.e., a lawyer, insurance company, construction company, etc)?
Q29. Why can’t a state society be Integrated AND continue to sell state-only members?
Q52. Why must it be one or the other? Why can’t a state society choose Integrated affiliation AND offer state-only membership? Aren’t we all better off if a member chooses to join at one level, even if we can’t get them to join at both?
Q49. What will the transition to the new model look like for state societies that currently offer state-only memberships?
Q46. What’s changed with national’s billing performance and capacity since the billing problems that occurred a decade ago?
Q30. Can the national database automatically notify an Integrated state society if a user changes their contact info (so the state knows to update the info in any separate database, spreadsheet, or system they maintain)?
Q47. Our state society currently does its own billing and does it well. Why can’t we keep own doing our billing under the Integrated affiliation option?
Q31. Would national allow a grandfathering period for self-billing states to transition to national-billing?
Q32. If national provides a state-specific website for an Integrated state society, may the state independently make changes in website content?
Q33. If a state society chooses NOT to use a nationally-hosted website may it still use the NSPE-[state abbreviation].org web address?
Q34. If national provides a state-specific website and/or state-specific online community, can a user sign on with the same username and password to access both state and national content?
Q35. Will NSPE contract with local executive directors to take care of some tasks for lower capacity state societies?