🚀 go-pugleaf

Gerry:

I'm truly sorry you feel the way you do, but unfounded, emotional rants are
not going to improve anything; and unless you have facts to back up your
comments about the national board I suggest that you keep the innuendo and
insults to yourself.

As for your complaint about me as President of CIPS Ontario, see my above
comment. But you raise a point that deserves addressing, your comment that,
"to  contradict the consensus built at the board in a letter to the press
is unworthy of your office!", I will address it by attaching a copy of my
response to a CIPS Ontario member who wrote (a civil letter) to express his
concern about the amount of publicity the affair was generating, and also
to ask about my status regarding the consensus expressed in the Ontario
board's letter to the national board. Following is my response to that
member, and the full text of what appeared in an abridged form as the
Computing Canada Commentary column:

--------------------------------------
...I appreciate your concerns about the publicity surrounding the removal
of Steve Gallinger, and I share some of them, but I felt that the
misinformation published in Computing Canada needed correction. It was
misleading to readers in general, but especially to CIPS members, because
it painted the national board in a very negative light, which it absolutely
does not deserve. Sadly, what was written suffered much in the editing and
as a result what appeared in print was somewhat disjointed. At the end of
this message you will find the full text of what I wrote, which is much
more clear. By the way, for me writing is a cathartic experience, and I
wrote it originally just to get my strong feelings about the issue
organized and expressed; it was only later that I decided to send it as a
letter to the editor. The editor decided that it was too long for a letter,
and made it into a Commentary, but apparently even that didn't get it
enough space.

As I read your message, I came across some misconceptions that concern me,
and so I'm going to address them. There are four of them, some that I've
heard before from others, and they need to be dispelled.

Misconception #1:

Communications from boards of directors are "opinions". No-one on any board
has the right to present their opinion as the board's position. Our letter
to the national board was a consensus position, and not the opinion of any
individual.

This first misconception is contained in your question regarding the CIPS
Ontario board's letter to the national board, "...why the apparent
contradiction in your opinion...". There is no contradiction or
inconsistency because the letter was not my opinion; presidents and boards
do not have opinions. The letter represented a consensus position of the
members of the board of CIPS Ontario, all of whom know that coming to
consensus is the most important thing a board does. There were strong
feelings about the issue across a wide continuum, but after much sober
deliberation what went into in the letter was a position that everyone
supported. Being able to reach consensus in that way on such a contentious
issue is the mark of a good board, and as president I believe that the CIPS
Ontario board is a good one.

If you have read the letter to the national board you will remember that it
clearly acknowledges that Steve Gallinger's behaviour was such that it
required action by the board and that the board acted as the by-laws
required, but that we had concerns about some parts of the process. Our
major concerns were around the amount of time allowed for the preparation
of the VP's response, the fact that the removal decision appeared to have
been effected largely within the Executive Committee without the knowledge
of full board, and the apparent lack of attempt at remedial action before
the decision was reached. As president of CIPS Ontario I signed the letter
secure in the knowledge that, based on the material presented by the
national board and on Steve Gallinger's responses, I and all the board
members agreed with the position that it expressed. I would not do
otherwise.

In its response to the letter, the national board addressed the major
issues. They pointed out that there was nothing in the by-laws regarding
the amount of time to allow for the preparation of a response (I believe
they sought legal guidance on the matter); that there was no secrecy
because the full board was in fact aware of the growing difficulties and
ultimate removal decision through the Executive Committee minutes; and that
a number of attempts to remediate the situation had taken place, but that
Steve Gallinger opted not to participate, as he also opted not to offer his
resignation when asked. Had he resigned, your concerns regarding publicity
would never have arisen.

Misconception #2:

The president of CIPS Ontario does not have a right to personal views as a
CIPS member.

This concern comes from your comments, "...published personal views  which
[you] read as supporting the dismissal...compromised the
I.S.P.,...publishing personal views while in office...".

I have every right to express my views as a CIPS member. CIPS is a
three-tiered organization, and my membership in CIPS Ontario is separate
and apart from my membership in CIPS Toronto section. I expressed my views
as a CIPS member, I made that clear to the newspaper editor, and it was so
noted in the article. It had nothing to do with the I.S.P. designation.

You're right that I personally support the dismissal. If you do as I did
and examine the facts you will find it difficult not to come to that
conclusion. The basic facts are contained in the by-laws, the national
board removal package, and Steve Gallinger's response; and you can fill in
any gaps by talking to the participants, as I did. The members of the
national board that I have talked to were pleased to have someone listen to
their side of the story, because very few people have bothered to ask them
about it. You will find the facts that led me to my conclusion in the full
text of the piece that I wrote, which appears below.

Misconception #3:

The removal of Steve Gallinger is really about the SHRC.

This concern comes from your comment, which I'm sure was not intended to
offend me, "...commit the same crime as Steve Gallinger when he disagreed
with the national board on the SHRC issue...".

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the SHRC, and secondly I have
committed no crime. I stated my opinion publicly on the issue of the
removal of the CIPS national VP, because I believe that he failed in his
duty to me and to all the members who voted for him. The SHRC issue is a
smoke screen which is being used to cover up the real problem, which is
that Steve Gallinger was so inexperienced and ill-prepared for the
important and demanding role of national VP that he was removed because his
behaviour slowly lost him the respect and trust of his board colleagues to
the point that they felt that the only solution was to remove him. The VP's
main job is to learn from the president how to build consensus with the
board; but if you alienate the rest of the board you seriously threaten the
well-being of the organization.

Steve Gallinger's response to the behaviour and activities described in the
national board removal package can be summed up as an admission, "Yes, I
did those things, I didn't think there was anything wrong with them". In
fact, there was a lot wrong with them, as I point out below. A
well-prepared candidate for VP would have known most of it ahead of time,
and certainly would have followed the advice of his board colleagues
regarding the things that he didn't know.

 Misconception #4:

This is a CIPS Ontario issue.

This concern comes from your comment, "...owe each I.S.P. holder an
explanation...obligation to find out what the member's views are...".

No member of a CIPS provincial body has to justify their participation in
issues at a local section level.

At the board meeting when the letter to the national board was composed we
discussed the fact that this was not legally a CIPS Ontario issue; but
there was consensus that it required some action to be taken. The issue is
a CIPS national and section one, because it does not concern the
administration of the professional designation in any way. However, we
agreed that in writing the letter we could send two messages; one to let
Steve Gallinger and the national board know that we as a fellow board had
concerns about their board process, and a second to state our readiness to
help in remediating the situation if asked. Beyond that, CIPS Ontario has
no direct involvement in the issue, since it does not involve the
administration of the I.S.P. designation.

I know that you are hoping for and counseling a "quiet and honourable"
resolution to this sorry affair, but avoiding publicity is not constructive
when one side has already tried to use the press to their advantage. I was
deeply offended by the "political hatchet job" level of rhetoric that came
through in the Computing Canada interviews. In my view it served only to
deflect attention away from the true cause of the board's ultimate action,
which was the behaviour of the VP, and so I did some research into the
facts and offered a view that examined the issue more objectively.

I've been a CIPS member for about twenty years, and in that time a lot has
happened, and many people and personalities have come and gone, but the
institution endures. CIPS is strong; it has outlasted DPMA and ASM, it has
survived other internal conflicts, and it will survive this latest tempest
in a teapot. In that I have great faith, and I think that you and many
others do too.

Regards,

Bill Ross

-------------


To the Editor,
Computing Canada
November 26, 1998

Your editorial in the November 23rd edition carries the headline "CIPS Has
A Serious Problem", and goes on to say, "CIPS had better get its act
together". It then refers to "an ugly internal feud" which has broken out
over the recent dismissal of VP Steve Gallinger. Sadly, the piece contains
no factual explanation of why he was removed, even though there were valid
reasons for doing so. The editorial seems to have jumped aboard the
bandwagon without asking what the parade was about, or where it was going.
In presenting this picture your usually solid and even-handed editorial
content has slipped a bit, and in doing so you have done CIPS a disservice.

Had you reviewed the facts, which are available on Mr. Gallinger's web
site, and weighed the evidence, you would likely have come to the same
conclusion that I did, that the behaviour that got him dismissed from the
CIPS board would have got him dismissed from the board of almost any
organization. The board's description of the offending conduct is clear,
and Mr. Gallinger even admits to it. His response is that he doesn't think
it was inappropriate behaviour, or that he didn't know there were any rules
against it. These answers are disingenuous, because nobody who was
well-prepared for the role of board member, let alone Vice President, would
give such  weak answers. In the final analysis, Mr. Gallinger was removed
because his behaviour showed that he did not understand the job, and when
it was pointed out to him he said that he wasn't prepared to change.

He presents himself as the injured party who has been wronged for no
apparent reason, but ignores the fact that perhaps he was the author of his
own misfortune. As one of the constituents he promised to serve, I feel
very badly let down by Steve Gallinger. He asked for my vote, and then,
after his election, proved ill-prepared for the job to which he aspired. To
anyone who has served on the board of a non-profit organization or charity
his mistakes are obvious, and they are obviously the mistakes of an
inexperienced board member.

To understand why his behaviour justified his removal you need two things;
a copy of the CIPS By-laws, and some readily available literature on
non-profit board governance. The by-laws are on the CIPS web site, and
there is a lot of good reference material available at libraries and
bookstores. John Carver and Peter Drucker are two excellent authorities on
the subject, providing solid guidance for anyone who is considering a board
role. So, with by-laws and reference books at hand, consider the series of
events which led Mr. Gallinger to his current aggrieved state...

In the last CIPS national elections he ran for VP on a platform that
included more education for CIPS members, and a more open style of
governance. As is required of all potential board members he signed an
acceptance form to acknowledge that he had read and understood the duties
of the VP as defined in CIPS National By-law 7(c). This means that he knew
his role and responsibilities before taking office, and he agreed to them
in writing.

The rest is history; he was elected VP but after several months the board
effected his removal, citing 5 specific areas of complaint about his
behaviour, all of which seem to involve breach of the by-laws, or deviation
from the job description that he had agreed to in writing.

1. He refused to keep certain board matters confidential...

Some of what boards do is public. For example, board meetings are open to
the membership and the minutes of board meetings must be made available,
because the board is responsible to the membership. Occasionally a board
can decide to meet in camera, in which case the meeting is held behind
closed doors. The CIPS board is empowered through By-laws 7(f) and 7(g), to
appoint any committees or councils that it chooses, and these are
responsible to the board, and not directly to the membership. The meetings
and proceedings of committees are not open to the membership; except when a
committee invites the membership to give their input on some matter. This
means that committee members should not be publicizing that which
transpires in committee, because that publication is the right of the
board.

According to the complaint, Mr. Gallinger passed information to an
individual outside of the committee and was asked to cease this behaviour,
but refused. His response, that he was justified because he ran on a
platform that included "open governance", is spurious. Campaign promises do
not automatically become board policy just because the candidate gets
elected. In any organization a notion as vague as "open governance" would
require careful study and definition before a board would make policy out
of it. A serious breach of behaviour led to a request to stop, and his
subsequent refusal contributed to his removal. Why is he asking for
sympathy?

2. He communicated with colleagues in a unprofessional and insulting
manner...

This can be a somewhat subjective issue, but we all have to take
responsibility for our actions, and when our actions aggravate the people
around us it's usually a good sign that we need to modify our style. As
children most of us learned that different situations require different
behaviours. What is acceptable in the school yard is not appropriate at the
dinner table, and what is acceptable in casual after-work conversation is
not appropriate in a business meeting. Saying, "This is what I'm like and
you'll just have to live with it" is hardly an effective communication
style; most employers would not accept having their customers treated that
way. Mr. Gallinger's inappropriate behaviour led to a request to modify it,
and his subsequent refusal contributed to his removal. Is this how to
provide quality service to your constituents?

3. He failed to demonstrate the abilities to meet the documented criteria
for board members...

This too can be subjective in parts, but his disregard for the by-laws, and
his abrogation of the nomination acceptance agreement, could be seen to
demonstrate a deficiency in two of the most important areas, integrity and
good judgment.

4 & 5. Lack of support for national office staff, and involvement in
running the national office...

A board member has absolutely no business getting involved in the
organizations' administration; John Carver points out in his books that the
board member who is interfering in the office is not doing a good job
because the job of a board is making policy, not interfering in office
procedures. This good advice is even built into the CIPS by-laws. By-law
7(c) defines the VP's job, and it makes no mention of running the national
office; By-law 7(d) states unequivocally that the national office reports
to the board; and By-law 7(e) states clearly that the CEO is responsible
for the operation of the national office. Mr. Gallinger attempted to
interfere with the staff, and the CEO informed the president of this
inappropriate behaviour. His response, "I don't remember seeing any rules
against it", is not credible. Didn't he read the by-laws?

There has been mention of the fact that his removal from the board was
surprising since he was recently given a CIPS GALA (Got A Lot Accomplished)
award, of which he can be justifiably proud, for his work in setting up the
CIPS web and e-mail facilities. John Carver's material takes great pains to
point out that there is a big difference between volunteer work and board
work.  The GALA award was for his volunteering his vocational skills, it
has no connection with his performance as a board member.

It is not easy  TO WRITE a letter such as this about a fellow CIPS member,
but as his constituent I feel I was ill-served, and now he is avoiding
taking responsibility for his actions. He was removed because he did not do
the job he was supposed to do. If he had done more preparation for the
important job of VP, perhaps things might have turned out differently. If
he had paid more attention to the by-laws, perhaps things might have turned
out differently. If he had accepted the advice of his colleagues, perhaps
things might have turned out differently. But he did none of these things,
and I for one cannot offer sympathy or support to someone who acted so, and
then refuses to take responsibility for it. Mr. Gallinger was hoist by his
own petard, and in my view he owes CIPS and his former constituents an
apology.

                                   x x x







Gerry Howlett <howlett.innovations@sympatico.ca> on 02/25/99 08:05:46 AM

Please respond to gerry@howlett.ca

To:   CIPS-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA
cc:    (bcc: Bill Ross/CTAL/CTC)
Subject:  Re: Fwd: Board incumbents letter (was: Resent mail....)




My comments are inserted below.
Gerry Howlett
gerry@howlett.ca
Howlett Innovations Inc.
www.howlett.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CIPS General Discussion List [mailto:CIPS-L@hermes.csd.unb.ca]On
> Behalf Of Bill Ross
> Sent: February 24, 1999 5:45 AM
> To: CIPS-L@hermes.csd.unb.ca
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Board incumbents letter (was: Resent mail....)
>
>
>
>
> In response to Mark Olson's comments...
>
> Mark, I think you are right that a lot of energies have been diverted
from
> more worthwhile activities over this whole issue.
>
I agree that a lot of energies have been diverted to this issue, but I
disagree vigorously that this is not a worthwhile issue.  Ever since 1990,
when I started being involved as a volunteer, I have heard repeated reports
from several national directors: of stupid petty bickering, backroom deals
and West-vs-East battles on the National Board.  When people say "ENOUGH!"
I
think they're referring to all the stupidity that has gone before as much
as
to our current situation.  I also say ENOUGH!
I could never figure out the rationale behind such behaviour until someone
recently suggested to me that post-position perks have some tangible value.
Is that what it's all about?  It makes me sick.
This issue is worthwhile if only to expose and remove the cancer that's
been
eating the society for such a long time.  Too many good volunteers with
good
intentions end up wasting their time because of the nonsense that happens
at
the National level.  ENOUGH!
> At the recent national board meetings, Bob Klay, (CIPS Calgary President)
> told me that he and Steve Gallinger had a conversation in which Steve
> reportedly said, "I don't want to be re-instated, I just want a review".
>
> You make the observation that passing motion 1 would simply reinstate an
> untenable position, and you are correct. My conversations with nat. bd.
> members leads me to the conclusion that Steve G. brought no policy
> proposals or vision to the position. My personal belief (which I've
stated
> publicly in the past) is that Steve was not prepared for the job, and no
> understanding of how a board operates. He's done good volunteer work, but
> he's not a board member, and certainly not a  leader. You can't be a
loner
> in a world where consensus is everything.
>
After several years on the Toronto and National boards in association with
many past and then-current National and Section directors, to suggest that
Steve doesn't know how a board operates is quite simply ludicrous.  How do
you expect to get off saying stuff like this?
> I have sympathy for those board members who, having experienced several
> months of the VP's behaviour which led us all to this point, declare that
> they have no intention of sticking around for more if he is reinstated.
>
> Bill Ross
>
I welcome the departure of most of those who have announced their
intentions, in the hopes that the pettiness and secretiveness leave with
them.
Like you, I also have sympathy.
I have sympathy for the I.S.P. holders in Ontario who must suffer having
you
as their president: to  contradict the consensus built at the board in a
letter to the press is unworthy of your office!  And you have the nerve to
preach "in a world where consensus is everything"!  Where is your sense of
propriety?  Such mockery of the members is intolerable.