🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Ross wrote:

> Clark:
>
> Some belated responses to your thoughtful comments...
>
> 1. Since the board sought legal advice in handling the situation with the
> national VP, I find it a reasonable assumption that the lawyer would have
> told them if they were not on solid ground as to just and sufficient cause.

When I was having the SGM motions checked by a lawyer before the SGM call went
out. I asked about a definition on "just and sufficient". What I understood of
his explanation was that if this were a position where the person was an
employee and  being fired there would be a set of case law that defines "just
and sufficient". This is a volunteer position and the case law does not apply.
"Just and sufficient" means whatever the board wants it to mean. He compared it
to a bunch of 10 year olds with a backyard tree house club. Just and sufficient
can mean anything.

Without a review we will never know if "just and sufficient" means actions
serious enough to warrant removal or implementing the platform he was elected
on that the board disagreed with. Reading both the board's FAQ and Mr.
Gallinger's FAQ it remains a question in my mind.

Slapping Steve with a removed for just and sufficient cause is a serious thing.
If it stands on his record it better be for a "just and sufficient" reason.

> 2. As a member of the certification council I have worked with a number of
> the national board members over the past three years, and I have always
> found them to be reasonable people. There certainly has been no conflict in
> any of my meetings and dealings with them.

What I have seen of the board I would agree. I have work with steve forming the
CIPSNet committee and I have a hard time believing the charges. I know that
there is no love lost between steve and the board long before this event. If
you don't like someone and see them doing something you disagree with, it is
human nature to assume the worst intentions. Both sides of this may be guilty
of assigning their own worst fears on the others intentions and both could be
wrong. The only think clear in my mind is this we as a group have serious
communication problems, lots of people talking and not a lot of listening going
on.

> 3. I agree that it is time for some introspection by CIPS. We are 40 years
> old, and perhaps it's time to change the way we do some things. But I
> believe strongly that the change needs to take place at the right level,
> and in the way that it is most needed.

Agreed and that is why I voted for  steve in the election. Change is needed,
and Steve was our best hope for change.

> Will changing a few by-laws at national really solve what may be nothing more
> than a middle-aged malaise?

CIPS is in need of a complete review of what it is. Who are we, what are our
goals as a society. CIPS has done an important thing with the ISP, and
certification. CIPS can be a strong and vital organization but since I first
had any contact with the board, it has been focused on "maintaining" and more
of the same and more of the same. What has been done has been GOOD!! But during
this time we have seen thousands of members come into the organization and
leave because what was there was not of sufficient value for them to stay. We
need to change that and to change that, we don't need more of the same.

> My personal feeling is that where CIPS is most in need of revitalizing is
> at the section level, which national certainly cannot do... speaking as a
> Toronto member, we have been following the "dinner meeting" model for all
> of the 20 years that I've been in CIPS, and I go to fewer and fewer of them
> because they are relatively expensive and no longer very interesting for
> me. The IT field has become so broad that it's difficult to get speakers
> who can appeal to a broad audience.

I would agree that most of the value to the member is at the local section.
National is needed too. Why is Toronto having 1 dinner meeting  that you are
less and less interested in. Why don't you have a limit on the size of a cips
section? Say 100 people If you end up with more than a hundred people in
asection you have to split it in two. That way you might end up with 6 sections
in toronto (What are the chances you might get more things to see that are
interesting to you if you could choose out of 6 sections dinner meetings a
month.) OLDTHINK, big sections more power bigger voice at national. NEWTHINK
small sections, more options for members value.

For what it is worth

Mike

> What's your experience as a Bluenose member, and as a visiting NB member?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ross