🚀 go-pugleaf

I post this with a great deal of intrepidation. I for one want CIPS having
now let the membership speak get on with the real work of promoting and
supporting the IT profession.

However, I have to make a couple of comments.

First, I am please that the vote was definitive showing clearly that a large
number of members supported the Board's action with regard to Mr. Gallinger.

Second, I need to say  that  I am not sure why I was "offside" with so many
of the other members in terms of my belief that the process followed needed
an independent review but clearly I was.  I accept that and will "live &
learn" and I apologize if my conviction that I was right offended anyone in
the course of the debate.

Third (and this is my key point which I wanted to make before the meeting
but felt it could be misunderstood when the outcome of the SGM was still
unknown).

 The point --
I assume most have seen this in the  CIPS National newsletter

"The Nomination Committee chaired by Ken Chapman, I.S.P., Past President is
pleased to announce that the following CIPS members have been elected to
the CIPS National Board of Directors by acclamation.

Vice President            Faye West, I.S.P.     Edmonton
Saskatchewan Director     Chris Osicki          Queen City
Eastern Ontario Director  John Boufford          Kawartha
Quebec Director              Gilles Bertrand        Montreal".

I don't have a concern about the qulaity of these people, one of which I
know personally and would have voted for in any case.

I also  know from personal conversations with Ken that he was eager  to
identify multiple qualified candidates and have as many candidates on the
ballot as possible.

The question I have for people to consider is "what  do we infer from this?"
Some options are
1) people are very content to allow anyone who is willing to volunteer be
acclaimed (and this isn't to suggest that those who do volunteer are not
dedicated and capable) because that means there is no pressure on the rest
of us to step forward and get involved?

2) there simply aren't any more qualified people who could step forward and
be a part of setting the direction for CIPS?  I rather doubt that.

3) people who could do it are unable to commit the time (and other
resources) necessary to participate at the National level.  Could be. I know
it intimidates me.
(Is there anything we could do to reduce those barriers?)

4) many of the people who have engaged in the debate over governance and
change  have stayed back because they genuinely believed they would not be
accepted? Also possible but hopefully the board will take on the challenge
of  removing those fears if they exist.

5) people who have suggested that change is required are not prepared to
"put their money where their mouth is". Also possible but I suspect  not a
major reason.

6) or will  we find that it is just "apathy" on the part of the members and
I will just be overwhelmed with a cry of "who cares?" (Bill - that one's for
you) in response to this posting.

I think this is an opportunity for CIPS members and other interested parties
to have some constructive dialog that can provide CIPS with the strongest
possible leadership as we move into the new millenium.  Are there other
(hopefully) constructive views or thoughts on this issue?