🚀 go-pugleaf

John _ I don't see the fact that fewer people turned out than voted as any
problem. I would however have been distressed if the votes that had been
mailed in where not considered as constituting a quorum. From my
understanding of the concept of a meeting it is not MANDATORY that people be
present for a meeting when there is the option of a mailed in ballot. In any
case it is a moot point.

 It IS disappointing to me as a CIPS member that there are other members or
previous members who take the view that unless the organization operates
exactly as they want it to they won't remain a part of it. It seems to me
that if we allow this type of "internal friction" in the profession to
divide us we deserve the obvious result that we won't be treated as
professionals.

I respect your right to make the choices you make but I think you should
also accept the accountability that these are YOUR choices not something
forced on you by other unreasonable people. One of the most basic principles
of professionalism is accepting personal accountability for your decisions
and actions.

Good luck on your future endeavors.

>A few comment on the Ottawa SGM.
>
>It was never clear what would have happened if an insufficient number of
>members had come to the meeting and a quorum could not have been achieved.
>Fortunately, about a dozen or so Ottawa members were there along with about 20
>from the Toronto area.  From the information I was given, the absence of
>either of these groups could have meant that the quorum would not have been
>achieved.
>
>It is probably indicative of how important members see CIPS that, out of
>approximately 6,500 regular and certified members, more than 20% voted and 1%
>actually showed up for the meeting.
>
>I, too, was there.  It was disappointing, but not unexpected, to see that the
>meeting was closed.  I had been hoping that CIPS and the executive would
>recognize that being "open and public" would begin to repair the damage.
>Instead, I saw a mentality that believed a select group knew what was best for
>CIPS and that was the way they and CIPS would continue to operate.
>
>As I said in an earlier message, the Board's policy of overturning the results
>of an election were wrong and I looked forward to the Board's rectifying the
>situation.  It is clear now that they  will not correct the root causes of the
>situation. I'm almost tempted to say that the Board still doesn't "get it"
>though, had I been allowed to observe the meeting, I might have a different
>interpretation.
>
>I don't think the Board appreciates the harm they have done.  I am not the
>only person leaving the organization.  Some of the others were active
>volunteers at local sections and the loss of their energy will be felt.  I
>hope that those people who were actively involved and are leaving will
>continue to use their energy to help other organizations that depend on
>volunteers.  On the professional side, there are organizations like PMI; on
>the community side, there is the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
>
>In short, I hope that those who leave CIPS see a new opportunity and carry
>with them the idealism that they had on joining CIPS.  And I hope those who
>stay will mold a CIPS that members past and present can be proud of.
>
>John Beamish
>former CIPS member
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>