I thought this was an interesting point about chapters and groups and that 
you may benefit from reading it.  It came from the Council Delegates Listserv.

Sheila

In a message dated 8/29/1999 11:07:56 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

> 
>  For Chapters that are statewide, the Groups are
>  · Fundamental to the strength and success of the Chapter and the Club
>  · The most effective way to serve and involve members around a state
>  · The most cost-effective interface between the Club and our general
>  membership and the public
>  · The training and recruiting ground for Chapter officers, committee 
chairs,
>  activists, outing leaders, etc.
>  · A great way for the Club to work on local as well as statewide issues
>  · And much more.
>  
>  I picture the Club to Chapter and Chapter to Group relationships as very
>  similar, with a Chapter composed of Groups just as the Club is composed of 
> the
>  Chapters. The Club works on federal issues, the Chapters work on statewide
>  issues and the Groups work on local issues.
>  
>  The Chapters do have a major but not exclusive role in managing their 
Groups
>  and ensuring that they comply with Club policies and procedures. The 
> Chapters
>  are clearly in the best position to do this effectively, especially when 
all
>  of the Groups participate and vote in the Chapter EXCOM. (I recommend this 
> be
>  mandatory in the new bylaws.) Managing their Groups may be somewhat of a
>  burden on Chapters, but a necessary one.
>  
>  On the other hand, occasionally a national entity creates an unnecessary 
and
>  excessive burden on the Chapters by asking the Chapter for detailed info 
> about
>  each Group, when it could have asked the Groups directly. The OE newsletter
>  survey was a very burdensome example of this and should not be repeated.
>  
>  The Club also needs to respect the high degree of autonomy that allows
>  effective Groups to work independently from the Chapter on local 
> conservation,
>  membership, outing and fundraising activities. It is exactly this autonomy
>  that makes the Groups a powerful force multiplier for the Chapters and the
>  Club, just as the Chapters are for the Club. Respecting this autonomy 
means,
>  for example, considering Group funds, income and assets separately from
>  Chapter funds, income and assets. It also means framing the Canvass "turf"
>  boundaries in terms of Group boundaries. When the Canvass folks simply name
>  some metropolitan area with several adjoining Groups, it can be difficult 
to
>  get buy-in from the correct Groups.
>  
>  Although I can see some room for clarification, and I have my own ideas 
> about
>  what works for Chapters/Groups, I also believe that our diversity in 
> Chapters
>  structures is part of our strength. Only very compelling arguments would
>  justify forcing more conformity. Something missing which might be helpful 
is
>  an effective means for Chapters to share in detail what works well for 
them.
>  This could help us gain the most benefit from our diversity, and perhaps
>  encourage voluntarily standardizing on what seems to work best.
>  
>  I would like to hear all of the concerns that Carl presents to the CCL 
EXCOM.
> 
>  
>  If the CCL wants to set up a committee or task force on Chapter/Group
>  relations I might be available. I was a Group founder and Chair before
>  becoming a Chapter officer.