ApprovedStamp sml Reformation Voting Results
The District Executive Council and District 4 Council have voted, the results are in.

District 4 Toastmasters have overwhelmingly elected to reform District 4 into two
districts beginning July 1st, 2016:
  •  District 4 (Los Altos and north) and
  •  District 101 (Mountain View and south).


District 4 has realized great success over the past few years. With our success comes tremendous growth. Spanning from San Francisco and south of Monterey, our district is currently home to 272 clubs, approximately 6000 members and growing. This is well above the average size of a Toastmasters district.

Why Reform?
To better serve our members, it was decided at the Fall Conference that the District would investigate the benefits of reforming into two districts. With this reformation, we will be able to better support our members, as well as provide more leadership opportunities.

The process
A reformation committee comprising of current and past district officers and club members with good representation from all divisions was formed last year.

Here are the District 4 Reformation Committee findings:

Reformation Committee Report
Over the years District 4 has been consistently growing. The successful growth of our district has brought us to the point where we are now looking at reforming District 4 as per Toastmasters International guidelines into two districts so we may better serve our members. The reformation is planned for the 2016/2017 year, with the transition year as 2015/16.

This needs analysis proposal provides details required for reformation as outlined in Protocol 7.0, section 4, remaining item D. Reformed or Consolidated Districts (pages 171-172), specifically:

D. If the Board approves the request or directs a reformation (approved in KL), the district governor appoints a reformation committee (completed) to conduct a detailed needs analysis that includes the following:

  1. Map of proposed boundaries, demonstrating that the reformed districts will have no fewer than 100 clubs each.
    Attached. Please note the boundaries are Los Altos to the north and Mountain View to the south. The “70” noted on the top of the map is there for reference due to the density of clubs in San Francisco. There are five clubs currently in Division C that will be realigned to Division G or J for the 15/16 year in anticipation of the reformation.

    As the map shows, the reformation divides District 4 into two Districts:
    • North: The counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and the cities of Palo Alto (including Stanford), Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills.
    • South: The counties of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and those portions of Santa Clara County not included in the North District.
  2. Number of clubs, club strength, growth trends, growth potential, population, education, languages spoken, and geographic influences for both districts:
     District 4 completed the 12/13 year with 254 clubs, 13/14 year with 267 clubs, is on track to complete 14/15 with approximately 280 clubs, leading us to 15/16 with anticipated growth to 290+ clubs.

    Club strength: At the proposed boundary and based on historical data, the northern district will have 70 clubs that in the past TM year were Distinguished or better and 71 that were not. The southern district will have 73 that in the past TM year were Distinguished or better and 62 that were not. We believe that these numbers will improve by dividing District 4. Growth trends: Based on information supplied by The Association of Bay Area Governments (, we anticipate robust growth for both the north and south proposed districts that are currently District 4. Specifically, in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Palo Alto (proposed north), and Santa Clara, San Jose, and Mountain View (proposed south).

    While we are essentially an English speaking district, we do enjoy having Mandarin English, Japanese English, and Vietnamese English clubs.

  3. Reasons why the reformation is in the best interests of the members, the clubs, the districts, and Toastmasters International:
    During these past two years, it has become increasing difficult to find good leadership for the district - the district has gotten so big that few want to take on that size and level of responsibility as volunteers – the time commitment is too great. Additionally, we believe that keeping the district this big will affect the quality of our clubs and the members; it has become increasingly difficult to have a pulse on the activities of Area Governors and the clubs. Lastly, by the time a potential club suspension issue comes to the attention of the Top Three, it is often too late to offer assistance with to that club which could help them legitimately avoid suspension.
  4. Implementation strategy:
    District 4 has already started to identify candidates to move forward as Division Directors, Program Quality Directors, Club Growth Directors. These are quality candidates that are interested because they see that the reformation will give us two more manageable districts, as opposed to leaving District 4 as is. With the approval of this Reformation Proposal, District 4 will move forward and elect two Program Quality Directors and two Club Growth Directors, along with a District Director. Our realignment plan for the 15/16 year will also take into account the reformation that will take place in 16/17, making the transition that much easier for members belonging to clubs on the proposed border.
  5. Marketing plan projecting growth and identifying key market opportunities for both districts:
    Key market opportunities to the north include San Francisco, which has been enjoying robust growth over the last couple of years and is projected to enjoy even greater growth through 2035, with an estimated job growth of over 35%, San Mateo (also in the north) is anticipating a 26% job growth rate during that same time period, and Palo Alto is expected to enjoy a 29% job growth rate. To the south, for that same time period, Santa Clara is expected to have a 36% job growth rate and San Jose a 38% job growth rate in that same period. Key markets are corporate clubs (including, but not limited to high tech, biotech, finance, and startups), educational facilities, and community clubs. These key markets are abundant for both sides.
  6. Succession plan identifying qualified future leaders in both districts:
    As mentioned earlier, we have very good candidates that have expressed an interest in moving forward in both districts should we move forward with this reformation.
  7. Financial projections demonstrating the anticipated income and expense for both districts:
    Financial projections are based upon membership payments for both proposed districts and is detailed below:
  North South N % S
Base 3141 3206 97.97%
Current 2648 2779 95.29%
Clubs 130 145 89.66%
Avg Goals 2.31 3.11  


Lastly, please note that we are seeking 101 as the district number for the new district, meaning we would begin the 2016/17 year with District 4 and District 101. This needs analysis report is respectfully submitted by the District 4 Reformation Committee.

Rita Barber, DTM, IPDG,
District 4 Reformation Chair

Reformation Committee Members
Rita Barber, DTM, IPDG (Chair); Annamarie Buonocore; Ken Cawley, DTM, PID, PDG; Tony DeLeon, DTM, PDG; Carol Fenwick, DTM; Karthik Kalpat, ACG, ALB, G1 Area Governor; David Singer, DTM; Jennifer Stephenson, DTM, PDG; and Susan Swope, DTM, PDG.

District Reformation Map with Clubs

District Reformation Map Color

District Reformation Map NS Border