🚀 go-pugleaf

Hear! Hear!

I am grateful to the author of this note for stating so clearly my own
misgivings about the way things have evolved relative to the entire
Gallinger / SGM situation. I agree whole-heartedly that many of the actions
of the Executive (and , by proxy, the Board) have given me the impression
that our Society has been taken somewhere I do not want it to go. I have
been equally frustrated by the apparent lack of availability of meaningful
avenues for redress.

I believe that to be true for Mr. Gallinger, who has dedicated a significant
part of his life to the Society's success. I still believe that we, the
members, do not have enough information on which to make an informed
decision as to whether his actions constituted just cause for removal from
his elected position. I am hoping that the passing of the motions at the SGM
will open up the process in a way that will allow the membership to decide
Mr. Gallinger's fate. As far as I can tell, he has shown himself willing to
submit to such a review. In my opinion that is evidence of an openness that
I have not detected in the actions of the Executive (and, by proxy, the
Board).

I also find that there has been little willingness on the part of the
Executive and the Board to take into consideration the very things that are
discussed in the note below. For me, this has added insult to injury. At the
SGM, I will be seeking some sign that the Executive has understood the
effect their actions have had on the Society. I also want to know that they
are willing to engage the membership in a meaningful way in a search for
ways in which the Society can be improved to better avoid such situations in
the future.

I am rather disturbed by the fact that the SGM itself is virtually a
meaningless exercise. I had the impression that the SGM would be held, the
issues would be discussed and the membership would vote afterward (in person
or by mail). As it stands, the issue is virtually certain to be pre-judged.
I am sure that more of the people who will vote will do so by mail rather
than in person at the SGM. The SGM offers little, if any, hope of actually
influencing the outcome of the vote. As a paying member, I must ask myself,
why are we having the meeting? If the intent is to allow people to vent
their feelings, then I am sure there are other forums that would have cost
us quite a bit less.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who has thoughts on these
ideas.

Rick Dondo


-----Original Message-----
From:   roberson@ibd.nrc.ca [mailto:roberson@ibd.nrc.ca]
Sent:   Sunday, February 21, 1999 11:52
Subject:        Re: Proxy Voting by Society Members

In article <19990220.073541.17986@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Ken Chapman
<chapmank@cips.ca> wrote:
:As you know, the procedures for the SGM were approved by the National
Board.
:
:Article IV of the Constitution says in part that "The Society shall be
:structured so as to have a National Board of Directors whose primary
function
:shall be to establish policies and priorities of the Society."

:Article VIII goes on to say that "The National Board shall meet ... to deal
with
:the orderly conduct of business properly brought before the meeting."


There are several implications to this answer:
1)      That the policies governing the proxy votes and general conduct at the
forthcoming SGM were decided at an official meeting of the National Board,
rather than being decided outside the framework of a meeting by people who
happen to be on the National Board. That is, it isn't a *policy* until it is
decided at a National Board meeting. Which National Board meeting were the
policies regarding the forthcoming SGM decided at, and are the minutes of
that meeting available? (And were those proposed policies "properly brought
before" that National Board meeting) ?


2)      That the National Board is free to create any policy (that is legal under
Canadian law) at a National Board meeting, by simple majority, to the extent
that the policy does not definitely conflict with the Constitution of CIPS,
and these policies need not have any reference to precedent in CIPS or to
common practice in industry, and need not be guided even in spirit by
established democratic procedures such as Roberts Rules of Order. Thus, the
National Board *could have* limited Steve to (say) 15 seconds while allowing
Board members to speak for an hour apiece. The National Board did not put in
such disparate limitations, but isn't it true, Ken, that the National Board
*could have* done so?

Isn't it the case that if the National Board -had- instituted a policy like
that with respect to the forthcoming SGM, that the members would have had to
call a different SGM (#2) to direct the National Board to amend the terms
under which the forthcoming SGM (#1) were to be held under-and that the
National Board would be free to set the policies for the conduct of SGM #2,
and so on, potentially recursing indefinitely until the next National Board
election?
In other words, is there not the -potential- for the National Board to
substantially redefine the rules? If there is, then is not the National
Board left open to the *appearance* that it is manipulating the rules for
its own ends? Usually, serious democratic institutions codify their
operating procedures (e.g. by adopting Roberts Rules of Order or similar) so
as to reduce the potential for hypothetical corrupt leaders to take control
away from the membership. Conversely, at times when the direction of the
leadership is under question, -any- change in policy that the leaders
undertake tends to be viewed as evidence of corruption, *especially* when no
codified rules are in place.

:The board has by its actions fulfilled its governance responsibility in
full
:compliance with the Constitution.  It has provided a process for the SGM
whereby
:the full society membership can participate in this important decision.


Ken, you have to realize that in the situation before you, literal
compliance
with the Constitution of CIPS is not enough. The nub of the SGM is not
really whether Steve is or is not reinstated: the nub is the membership's
view of the National Board. Where does the membership feel that the
National Board is positioned on the axis of
open democracy primarily for the benefit of members
                      ^
                      |
v
closed elite hidden in democratic form but primarily for its own benefit

Whenever this is under significant consideration, a truly democratic
leadership tends to react by being inclusive, confident that when a widest
practical membership has had an opportunity to examine a fair and balanced
presentation of the interpretation on both sides, that the majority of
people will consider the actions of the leadership to be reasonable under
the circumstances-perhaps not perfect, but reasonable-and so confirm the
decision. On the other hand, closed elites tend to react by making it
difficult for people to be informed and participate, perhaps feeling a need
to Control, perhaps counting on people not to be upset about things that
don't know about.
Thus, actions of inclusion tend to be interpreted as evidence of open
democracy, and actions of exclusion tend to be interpreted as evidence of
closed circles.

If, then, the National Board wants to be thought of as open and democratic,
then it would be advised to act openly and inclusively. It would, for
example, allow Real-Audio broadcasts of the proceedings to those who cannot
be physically present. [If legal liability is a concern, allow each
participant to choose whether or not to have their presentation broadcast.]
It would freely discuss reasons why it decided to handle proxies the way it
did, instead of just saying that it was "in full compliance with the
Constitution". It would open wide discussions on what it can do to avoid
the -appearance- of being closed and selfish, and on how best to change the
CIPS Constitution to avoid the *possibility* that a hypothetical corrupt
future leadership could play a game of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" with
the membership. And it would stand up at the SGM and say "We recognize this
as being a crisis of trust and confidence in how we work democratically on
behalf of the membership, and here are some of our plans on how we intend to
regain that trust."

Regardless of whether dismissing Steve was or was not In The Best Interests
Of The Membership, the National Board must address the issue that the way it
went about it and the way it has publicly handled the SGM so far, have had
the -appearance- of being closed and undemocratic.  If the National Board
does not make some visible changes, people are going to be left with that
perception long after the actual SGM, and that perception is going to lead
to continued crises until it is healed.