How should local sections be governed?
Joel Brown
First, the apology: Although the discussion in this note centers on
developments in the Toronto section, I think the issues are probably
applicable to other sections across the country. I have posted this note to
both CIPS-L and CIPSTO-L in order to get a broad range of opinions. For
those of you who subscribe to both lists, I apologize for cluttering your
Inbox. JB
I am a member of the Toronto section of CIPS. At a recent dinner meeting
our section president announced that he is proposing changes to the section
bylaws which will be voted on at our next Annual General Meeting (AGM for
the TLA fans). These bylaw changes would effect how the section executive
is formed and how it functions. Since many of the benefits that I receive
from CIPS are directly related to local initiatives, I take how my section
operates pretty seriously. I was therefore very interested in what is being
proposed.
The Toronto section currently has a number of directors each of which are
elected by the general membership for two-year terms. The specific
positions held by each director will change from year to year according to
the desires of the board members. Positions, including President, are
decided amongst the directors themselves, not by a direct election by the
membership (except insofar as they are elected to the board generally).
Although directors take on specific roles, everyone on the board seems to be
involved in several committees simultaneously. This means that the board
members do most of their managing via a consensus/committee approach. The
role of any given director is really more one of committee coordinator
rather than manager/executive. From talking with various board members over
the years I gather that this is true of everyone, including the President of
the section.
In terms of what is now being proposed, my understanding of our current
President's goals are as follows:
1. To make the organization as effective as possible.
2. To encourage new ideas and broader participation of the section
membership.
(and perhaps, reading between the lines: 3. To avoid cliquiness in the
board.)
No one could disagree with these objectives (I certainly don't in any case).
As far as the actual changes being proposed to the bylaws, I believe that
what is being proposed is:
1. Change the term of the President from one year to two years.
2. Place a maximum term limit on directors of two consecutive two-year
terms.
3. Take away the board votes of the directors who have no "portfolio". I
believe that this refers to the two directors who are elected within the
section as "Regional Directors" - i.e. representatives of the local section
to the National CIPS organization.
I do not see any relationship between the admirable goals which the Toronto
section president espoused and the means being proposed to achieve these
goals. Rather, I see a significant threat to the ability of the section
government to continue to provide the excellent value that they have been
providing to members like myself.
First and foremost, I think that it is vital to remember that CIPS is a
volunteer organization. As such, it suffers from a perennial lack of
talented, willing, and able bodies to do the good work of the society. Any
board member will tell you that they work very hard at what they do for CIPS
in addition to holding down full-time jobs, perhaps running their own
companies, and usually trying to give their families some attention in
between. Even believing as strongly as I do in the ideals of CIPS, and
believing firmly that volunteerism brings rewards commensurate with one's
willingness to give of one's time and energies, the prospect of trying to
come up with the 10 or 15 (or more) hours per week that it takes to be a
section board member has forced me to resist the strong urge to run for the
board.
When there are never enough volunteers available to fill the need, how can
you possibly think of arbitrarily rejecting the generous offer of time and
effort of those few who are willing, simply because they have already been
generous for four years? The term limit will not encourage new volunteers,
rather it will force volunteers out and cause a vacuum that will lead to the
section's implosion.
While some may argue that term limits will prevent stagnation and
cliquiness, I will argue from my own observation of the Toronto board that
the simple demands of career and home are more than adequate to ensure that
there is significant turn-around in board members. There are only a handful
of stalwarts who stick it out year after year (after year). I would go so
far as to say that we in Toronto owe a large part of whatever success we
enjoy as a section to these "CIPS lifers" who bring a sense of dedication
and stability to the section (you know who you are - big pat on the back
from me, folks!). By saying this, I am in no way diminishing the important
contribution of those who make their mark and move on - as I have already
admitted, these people have made a greater contribution than I have yet
committed to.
As far as lengthening the term of the president's position from one to two
years, the president of CIPS Toronto said that he found it very difficult in
a one year time period to "get things done". By this I infer that our
current section president believes that the role is primarily one of
strategic management. No one is a more staunch supporter of free enterprise
than I am, however, I don't believe that the private sector enterprise model
is appropriate for a professional society such as CIPS. In a private
enterprise, there is ultimately one primary goal - maximize shareholder
wealth. Because of the singularity of purpose, it is important to have
someone provide the necessary leadership (and take ultimate responsibility
for success or failure). In a professional society there are a wide range
of goals each of which are nearer and dearer to one member's heart or
another. Because of this diversity of goals, I believe that it is vital
that the widest possible range of influences be sought in order to guide the
direction of the sections and the society in general. Unlike a private
enterprise, it is inappropriate for a single individual to set the tone and
agenda of a professional organization like CIPS (or even just one of its
local sections).
This is doubly the case when the single individual in question is not
directly elected by the membership to fulfill this particular role.
Localizing too much power in one person's hands, especially for a period as
long as two years can only be detrimental to the society. If the priority
of a president given such power is to emphasize business networking, then
those who joined CIPS because of concerns for professionalism or education
will become disenfranchised and drift away. When the next president comes
along with a different agenda, a new wave of members will leave. I can't
speak for other sections but I know that the Toronto section is not growing
so strongly that it can afford to alienate large groups of members on an
ongoing basis.
By centralizing the power too greatly, the organization will not flourish,
but rather, it will wither to the point where no one will be eligible to run
for the board because all of the remaining section members will have had
their maximum two terms.
In terms of the taking away the votes of the regional directors, if I
understand the president of CIPS Toronto correctly, he believes that
everybody on the board works hard on many committees and that everyone has a
committee to run and that in order to earn the right to vote at board
meetings each person should share in the committee chairing workload.
It seems to me that the regional directors have responsibilities at the
national level in place of some of those at the section level (which they
nonetheless share in some part anyway according to my observations). The
fact that they do not chair a section committee in no way makes them any
lazier or less worthy than any other active section volunteer. On the
contrary, they have the same essential credentials as anyone else on the
section board, i.e., they were elected by the members of the section. This
qualifies them fully for voting privileges in my opinion.
I can see no reason why someone would propose that the votes of these
directors should be stripped away unless the intention was to increase the
localization of control within the section, which, as I have already said is
undesirable.
Well there you have it, my flame-thrower is empty for now. But just so that
you know that I am not simply a letter writing crank with nothing but
criticism to contribute, I want to suggest some alternative changes to the
bylaws which would be much more likely to achieve the Toronto section
president's stated goals and much less likely to be harmful.
First, if you want to encourage new ideas and greater participation, don't
make the working/voting board smaller, make it larger instead. Add a few
directorships without portfolio. Maybe there are some people out there who
have five or ten hours a week to contribute, but they don't have the
confidence or willingness to run a committee. It doesn't mean that they
can't provide vital input on the many committees the other directors chair.
Second, if you want to promote effectiveness and provide stable leadership
within the section board, don't install a two year (indirectly elected)
dictator, instead use the approach that most volunteer organizations use:
Have the membership directly elect a second or third vice-president who gets
promoted every year until they reach the presidency for their one year term.
This will give them experience with the other board members and allow them
to grow into the position rather than thrusting them into it after a maximum
of two years of prior board experience and forcing them to waste the first
year learning on the job. Furthermore, in order to promote even more
continuity and effectiveness, have the president move on to an official
position of past-president so that no great losses of experience are
inflicted on the organization.
Third, in order to ensure that CIPS represents all of its members as fully
as possible, enshrine the concept of board management by consensus in the
section bylaws so that, in the unlikely event that a slick, charismatic,
power-mad individual assumes the presidency of a local section, the
interests of the membership will be protected.
Joel Brown, ISP
Mooseware Limited
Roy Kayahara
Joel,
I share your concerns. The changes you describe seem pretty fundamental,
yet I saw no mention of them in the announcement about the Annual General
Meeting! Is this not something that the general membership should have a
say in? I would have thought that an issue as important as a change to the
constitution of CIPS Toronto wouldn't be something that the board would try
to slip past hoping no one would notice. The perfidy of the board in this
matter makes me object to the change purely on principal.
-- Roy Kayahara
Louis Lambert
To all of you on the list server I apologize to send this note just to
respond to Joel. But since his comments were sent to all of you I thought I
had no other choice, but to offer you my response.
Dear Joel,
And also Michelle and Roy, since you have voiced some interest…
First, I would like to point out these topics are concerning the Toronto
Section affairs. There was no need to distribute this information past the
Toronto Section.
Second, these proposed change have not been reviewed by the Board of the
Toronto Section as of yet. Hence, we are all wasting valuable time
discussing these prior to the Board having a chance to review them.
Third, perhaps it was foolish of me to disclose my idea at a dinner meeting,
but I just thought I would be open about my thoughts. I was specific at the
dinner by asking feedback by phone or to the Toronto Section Office Email,
where we could have handle questions. This is why we spend money on a
Section Office.
Fourth,
Folks, let's not continue this on the list server, AS IT HAS NOT PASS THE
BOARD YET. If any of you would like to discuss this with me, you can call
or Email, but save the rest of the membership from this. We have bigger
fish to fry. WE ONLY HAVE ONLY 6000 Members in Canada and we want to be
the voice of IT ???
Let's get serious.
>>>>>>>>>
Now with the response
Joel, you have understood my goals and I appreciate your support. However I
fail to see the big treat you seem to refer to.
With regards to your suggestion that I want to reject a volunteer after two
consecutive term on the Board. This is absolutely not the case. Your
interpretation, or what was explained to you is very radical. Joel, I am
proposing that after a second consecutive term, a Director steps down from
the board and lets someone else move in. Nothing would prevent Director to
take a committee chair role for that one year and run for the election the
year after. This is just healthy and will allow young blood such as a good
committee chairs or good volunteers to have a chance to attain the board
position.
As to the fact that we owe a lot to what you refer to the "CIPSlifers". I
agree that some people have given a lot of their time to CIPS and I applaud
them. These people did not all had to sit on the Board to make a change.
In fact your comment would support my proposal. I want to support these
people, I just want to increase the opportunity to others. Joel, you should
realize that the Toronto Section is not doing as well as it use to when
these "CIPSlifers" were in there early years. CIPS in Toronto used to be
twice the membership it currently is ??? We can not continue to work the
way we are operating, we must change. Change is never easy, but it must be
executed.
With regards to your comments on the two years term for the president. You
suggest the enterprise has to maximize shareholder value,… I say CIPS has to
maximize Stakeholders value. Joel it is the same principle, just a
different word. We have the same goal as business. Grow, provide value to
our clients/stakeholders and benefit the society in wish we live
As to the election of the President. If the membership elects the board
members, it is just logical for the board between themselves to elect the
one they want as their leader and their spokesperson.
With regards to the Regional Representative;
First, you should have been made aware by your souses that the National
Board will be reducing the role from two to one position for all regions.
Second, the National Representative (not a Director) do not vote on most of
the Section Boards, in fact in Toronto this was not the case until some time
ago. Very few sections have the National Rep. voting on their Board. To
me it is nonsense. The National Rep's job is to represent a group of
Section to the National Board, not to be involved in running these Sections.
This is why we have Sections and not just one National Organization. As for
the localization of control in the Section, Joel, it is written in the
bylaws, this is the way the organization and the Society is designed.
I hope this helps you and the other readers (if they did not fall asleep as
of yet).
To all of you folks
CIPS IS 40 YEARS OLD this year….. we need to change a lot of things to make
it 40 YEARS YOUNG.
If we do not act fast like some other associations are… we will have no
reasons to talk.
Have a great day and introduce CIPS to a co-worker, this is the best way all
of the members can contribute to the society.
Louis Lambert
Toronto Section President
CIPS
416-219-7476
**************************************************
Louis G. Lambert
Territory Manager
Xylan Canada
416.219.7476 (Cell)
416.545.2213 (Pager)
louis....@xylan.com (Corporate)
Louis G. Lambert
President
CIPS Toronto Section
lo...@cips.ca (Personal)
Gerry Howlett
From: Michele Kainz <mka...@CIPS.CA>
Date: Friday, October 24, 1997 8:33 PM
>All the more reason to continue this discussion on both CIPS-L and
CIPSTO-L. This raises the question of Board accountability to the
membership.
Hear, hear. I sense that some parties just don't want the membership to
discuss this. While I was content to stay out of the fray until now, I
recoil in horror at the way that this whole issue is being handled. WHY
does "the Board" not want "the membership" to discuss this issue? I would
much rather have sat by and let those I elected handle it in the way they
normally do, but all I seem to be hearing is calls for the discussion to be
stopped!?!?!
>I'm surprised that National Board is not concerned about this. CIPS to the
membership is both National and Regional all in one. If CIPS Toronto does
anything >that causes the membership lose faith in them, the membership has
lost faith in National as well. Has it occurred to anyone this may be a
cause for lagging >membership?
As a former member of the Membership committee for the Toronto section, I
don't recall having explored this question when we were searching for ways
to explain the drop in membership. I am not convinced that the society's
governing structure has much to do with membership levels, but the
beauracracy and double-talk etc. which seems to have become the norm for
board activities has certainly kept me from wanting to apply for the job,
and has caused me some concern over the past few years.
----------
From: Louis Lambert[SMTP:llam...@inforamp.net]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 12:59 AM
>To all of you on the list server I apologize to send this note just to
>respond to Joel. But since his comments were sent to all of you I thought
I
Louis, this is an open forum. You were practically being BEGGED for your
input to clarify this situation. Please don't apologise.
>First, I would like to point out these topics are concerning the Toronto
>Section affairs. There was no need to distribute this information past the
>Toronto Section.
Is there a need for secrecy?
>Second, these proposed change have not been reviewed by the Board of the
>Toronto Section as of yet. Hence, we are all wasting valuable time
>discussing these prior to the Board having a chance to review them.
You wanted our opinions, what better way of getting them than through
discussion? And what better discussion medium than newsgroups / listservs?
>Third, perhaps it was foolish of me to disclose my idea at a dinner
meeting,
>but I just thought I would be open about my thoughts. I was specific at
the
>dinner by asking feedback by phone or to the Toronto Section Office Email,
>where we could have handle questions. This is why we spend money on a
>Section Office.
So do we need to review the need for a Section Office?
>Fourth,
>Folks, let's not continue this on the list server, AS IT HAS NOT PASS THE
>BOARD YET. If any of you would like to discuss this with me, you can call
>or Email, but save the rest of the membership from this. We have bigger
>fish to fry. WE ONLY HAVE ONLY 6000 Members in Canada and we want to be
>the voice of IT ???
So where are the bigger fish? Is CIPS-L not a big enough frying pan?
>Let's get serious.
I don't see any reason to insult the membership by suggesting they're
flippant.
>Joel, you have understood my goals and I appreciate your support. However
I
>fail to see the big treat you seem to refer to.
I don't know about Joel, but stifling a free discussion seems like a pretty
big threat to me.
I can't imagine that any CIPS board members are conciously plotting to
stifle a free
discussion, but the way it comes across certainly makes it seem that way.
>With regards to your suggestion that I want to reject a volunteer after two
>consecutive term on the Board. This is absolutely not the case. Your
>interpretation, or what was explained to you is very radical. Joel, I am
>proposing that after a second consecutive term, a Director steps down from
>the board and lets someone else move in. Nothing would prevent Director to
>take a committee chair role for that one year and run for the election the
>year after. This is just healthy and will allow young blood such as a good
>committee chairs or good volunteers to have a chance to attain the board
>position.
Isn't that the role of elections? To get 'fresh blood'? Perhaps the biggest
problem is that the role of Director is under-marketed, resulting in too-few
applicants for any valuable competition to take place. In the last round,
as I recall, there were only two candidates in excess of the number of
positions.
If most members view being a director as an avoidable burden rather than as
a
fantastic personal and professional growth opportunity, then of course you
won't
see members clambering to be elected, and therefore the available 'pool of
blood'
will be at risk of becoming stale.
>realize that the Toronto Section is not doing as well as it use to when
>these "CIPSlifers" were in there early years. CIPS in Toronto used to be
>twice the membership it currently is ??? We can not continue to work the
>way we are operating, we must change. Change is never easy, but it must be
>executed.
If this (membership levels) is the biggest fish, then are the proposed
changes the
most effective actions in support of frying it? I disagree that "Change ...
must be executed."
Is this particular change really necessary? I think that the heart of this
discussion to date
may be the necessity of these particular changes (in light of all the other
big fish).
>With regards to your comments on the two years term for the president. You
>suggest the enterprise has to maximize shareholder value,... I say CIPS has
to
>maximize Stakeholders value. Joel it is the same principle, just a
>different word. We have the same goal as business. Grow, provide value to
>our clients/stakeholders and benefit the society in wish we live
Ok, but I don't really see how a 2-year term is going to make a huge
difference
to the performance of a president whose job is to be the spokesperson for
the
Board of directors. If the Board is going to continue to set the tone and
make the
decisions, then what difference does it make if its spokesperson has a
one-year
term or a twenty-year term? On the other hand, if the president sets the
tone and
provides the majority of the direction to the board, then that president
should be
directly elected by the membership so that the membership can ensure that
their
presidents views and priorities are in accordance with their own.
>As to the election of the President. If the membership elects the board
>members, it is just logical for the board between themselves to elect the
>one they want as their leader and their spokesperson.
This seems terribly confusing. How does anything ever get done? Perhaps
the
whole process needs to be addressed. Rather than proposing small changes,
why not propose a change which straightens out everyone's role at election
time,
rather than wasting a bunch of time figuring out who does what every year.
Perhaps there is a more effective model to follow (e.g. electing a
president, and
several "VP of whats-it"s, who together form 'the board' and direct the
activities
of the organization).
Well, there are my two bits. I think maybe now it's time for me to put on
my
asbestos suit, so I'm ready for the replies, eh?
Gerry Howlett
Howlett Innovations Inc.