🚀 go-pugleaf

I agree whole-heartedly with Mike. I know that I have written things in this
forum that may have been interpreted by some as personal attacks. For that,
I too apologize.

However, my passion for the goals of the Society remains the same: I want to
see us come out of this stronger. I will admit that I am having trouble
seeing how we will be able to do that given some of the circumstances we are
facing. However, I do agree that a lot of people are trying to do "the right
thing" for CIPS. I just wish we could all get past the partisan arguments
and look for the common ground. I would like to suggest the following as
starting points for the definition of that consensus:

- we all want CIPS to continue to grow in numbers of members
- we all want CIPS to continue to grow in scope (accreditation, professional
designation, etc.)
- we all want CIPS to be the vehicle that represents our common interests to
the rest of the world (the public, government, industry, employers, other
similar societies around the world, etc)
- we all want CIPS to continue to find new and innovative ways to deliver
requested services to the membership


Those are the points that come to me as I write this note. I admit that they
are stream of thought and not meticulously prepared. I suppose that means
that they are the ones that are "top of mind" when I think of what I want
from CIPS at the national level. I hope that others will add more ideas to
the list.

Right now, I think that there are some internal growth items that also need
to be dealt with. Please forgive my boldness, Mike, but I think these are
some of the things underlying your reference to "growth" in the note below
and some of the others you have posted in the past. If I am way of base,
please let me know:

- our constitution failed to serve the members, the Executive and the Board
at the time of the conflict that led to the Removal of Steve Gallinger as VP
- this situation (the open acrimony generated by the above action) should
neither have been allowed to happen; the Constitution should have ensured
that the action was obviously the best thing for the Society before it was
taken
- nor should the situation have been allowed to drag on this long; the
Constitution should allow for an "automatic" review process for an event of
this import that is both open and seen to be fair; the membership deserves
nothing less
- that necessitated a round-about process that seems to have served to also
generate more acrimony and hardening of positions; the search for a "win /
win" is getting harder and harder; once again, the "automatic" process
referred to above would
- we need to improve the Constitution to ensure that this never happens to
the Society again


I believe the review requested by Motion 2 would allow us to shed some light
on these points. It could also serve to find out just how far off-base I
might be with these suggestions.

I do not intend, by the way, to offer these suggestions as a criticism of
the current Board and Executive. I do not know enough to subscribe to the
"conspiracy" theories. I honestly believe that they were seriously limited
in their choices. As a Society, I believe that we need to provide future
Boards and Executives with more options in dealing with any similar
situations that may arise.

Thanks for listening,


Rick Dondo


-----Original Message-----
From:   Michael J. MacDonald [mailto:mjmacdon@juliet.stfx.ca]
Sent:   Friday, February 26, 1999 08:40
Subject:        Do we really want cips to grow from this experience?

Hi All,

We seem to have lost the point of the SGM completely since the SGM
package came out.

There were about a dozen people that contributed to the SGM. Many were
people who were supporters of the board, many were supporters of Mr.
Gallinger, and some were undecided. All were convinced that if CIPS was
to come out of this intact that a review was needed to clear the air and
let us move forward.  There was, I believe, a general opinion at that
time that this issue was one that could be dealt with in a professional
and dispassionate  manner that would allow CIPS to heal and be stronger
as a result.

I believe that we all felt that the motion 2 committee was the only
thing that would allow both sides to come to a common ground that we
could live with.

>From what I see the board has drawn the line as a black and white issue.
Mr. Gallinger and his supporters in one camp and the Board and the
membership in the other camp.

By failing to recognize (intentional or not) that the SGM is coming from
the membership it has made it more and more difficult to come to a
position where all members can come together and turn this into a
constructive event for CIPS.

Emotions are too high and getting worse.  I too am guilty of being
caught up in the emotions (My apologies to all).

Calm down take a deep breath, and ask how we can move out of the
win-lose mentality and how do we get to a position where CIPS can
actually grow and be a better place for us all, more of a win-win
position?

Mike