🚀 go-pugleaf

	**************************************************************
	NOTE: THIS ITEM IS BEING POSTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
	      THE POSTER CANNOT CONFIRM NOR DENY THE ACCURACY OR VERACITY
	      OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.
	      ALSO, POSTING DOESN'T NO IMPLY SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSTION TO
	      ANY OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED.
	****************************************************************




D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

Date:      7-Mar-1991 11:05am EST
From:      David Johnson 
           JOHNSON_D 
Dept:      Nat'l LUG Council
Tel No:    408-756-4544

TO: See Below

Subject: Update

At the last minute, I got a response from Jim Welborne, and have updated
my article to include it. Here is the updated version:

The DECUS Board of Directors has announced its intention to
propose a change in the DECUS by-laws which will significantly
modify the DECUS organizational structure. This change must be
ratified by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership.


The change calls for a reorganization of DECUS, as suggested by
the Arthur D. Little (ADL) consulting group which performed an
organizational audit of DECUS. An excerpt from the concepts
document being prepared by the Board describes the primary
organizational change:

"The recommended change merges the existing Board and Management Council
 into a new governing body composed of elements of both. This document will
 refer to that new body as the "Board Group" (BG). 

 The new Board of Directors is composed formally of twelve elected members,
 one voting Digital representative, one non-voting ex-officio member (the
 DECUS Chief of Staff) and one Digital alternate. In this document, use of
 the term "Board" refers to this group. 
 
 The "Board Group", as defined here, comprises the Board; the Chairs of the
 following units: National LUG Council, SIG Council, Symposium Committee,
 Seminars Unit, Communications Committee, and Library Committee; the Chair
 of the Elections and Protocols Committee (EPCOM); and senior staff members
 designated by the Chief of Staff and approved by the Board."

The Board Group meets as a whole to discuss policy and operational 
issues, but only the Board of Directors votes. Operational units, 
such as the National LUG Council and the SIG Council, may speak 
to issues, but not vote on them. During executive sessions, only 
the voting members may be present.

This change is being promoted as a means for eliminating the conflict
between the BoD and the MC, and for making DECUS management more
efficient and productive. 

At present, the Board and Management Council each have a say in the
governing of the Chapter. While the Board theoretically has ultimate
authority in all matters, in fact much has been delegated to the MC.
Often, there are overlaps in the perceived sphere of influences, and the
relationship becomes contentious. 

This seems to solve the problem by eliminating all authority from the
Management Council.

The proposal has been met with a significant amount of protest from
the "middle management" of DECUS. They feel that

1. They are being disenfranchised; that there is no real reason
   to change so dramatically, that this is a takeover attempt by
   the Board, (and some say by DEC); and, even more, that

2. There is something terribly wrong with the process by which
   this is taking place. While there is no immediate crisis in
   DECUS, this change is being rushed through without proper
   debate by the Chapter membership. It is perceived by some
   that there is an active attempt to stifle any comment which
   might be contrary to the wishes of the Board.

Now there is an election for three seats on the Board of Directors;
and the membership is being asked to select candidates for these
seats without being fully informed on what may be the most important
issue facing DECUS today, and the stands each of the candidates
take on that issue.

You, the members of DECUS, will be asked to ratify or deny this
bylaw change; and, when the ballot measure hits the street, there
will be precious little time for debate. So, in the interest of
illumination, I went to the candidates and offered each of them 
an opportunity to answer the following question:

  "Which of the following statements is closest to your stand on
   the proposed reorganization of DECUS?
 
     a) I am for it, and generally support the ADL recommendations.
 
     b) I am for reorganization, but in a direction significantly
        different from those articulated in the ADL recommendations.
 
     c) I do not believe reorganization at this time is a wise move.
 
   If you wish to add a short (two or three sentence) qualification
   IN ADDITION TO STATING A PREFERENCE I will be happy to print it
   verbatim."

While there was a very short time period allowed for response ---
the question went out at noon on Thursday, and we had to go to press
on Tuesday evening --- I did verify that each of the candidates had
an opportunity to read the request and respond. Seven of the eight
candidates did so, and their responses are reproduced below. One of
the candidates, Bill Brindley, chose not to respond. Brindley's 
position, however, is clear: he has spearheaded the move toward
reorganization, and is in favor of it. 

Here are the responses I received:

****************************************************************************

Date:      4-Mar-1991 01:23pm EST
From:      Margaret Knox
           KNOX
Dept:      SIG Council / MC
Tel No:    512-471-3241
 
TO: See Below
 
Subject: RE: Candidate's Statement
 
Dave
 
My statement covers me, if need be.
 
Of the three (I had trouble with true false in school) I would characterize
me as
 
I am in favor of change (evolution) when needed. I do not believe that the
process used in this reorg attempt was/is sound and I do not believe that
the reorganization as proposed will benefit the chapter. In fact I believe
it will cause us to be more Board driven, more Digital driven, and break
important communication lines among units. I also believe that it will
cause the Chapter to suspend useful forward motion, while all the parties
figure out how to get basic organizational work done.  We should "just say
no" to this reorganization plan.
 
****************************************************************************
 

D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
 
Date:       4-Mar-1991 12:24pm EST
From:       James McGlinchey
            MCGLINCHEY
Dept:       Board of Directors
Tel No:     (215)284-1741 home
 
TO:  David Johnson                        ( JOHNSON_D )
 
 
Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009079
 
        Dave -
 
        I made a statement regarding the proposed reorganization in
        my candidate's statement.
 
        I think that publishing any thing other than what I have
        said in that statement would appear to be electioneering.
        Please feel free to extract verbatim from my candidate's
        statement.
 
        Jim McGlinchey
 
****************************************************************************
 
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
 
Date:       2-Mar-1991 08:11am EST
From:       Sandy Krueger
            KRUEGER
Dept:       Management Council
Tel No:     908-725-3117
 
TO:  David Johnson                        ( JOHNSON_D )
 
 
Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009078
 
I guess my response falls somewhere between B and C.  I believe the current
strucuture needs massaging, not total revamping.  In particular, I would
redesign the responsibilities of the Board, as well as the objective
criteria for Board membership.  I see a Board made up of Industry
"Personalities", related to Digital, whose influence and leadership would
propel DECUS into a position of power related to discussions about the
future of the Industry.  Secondly, I would like to charter a major study on
the DEC/DECUS relationship, primarily related to the staff, and staff
director position, and how these are meshed into the top of the
organization.  I believe our current handling of this issue does not recognize
proper staff/volunteer relationships in not-for-profit associations.
Further I believe the current staff relationship is damaging to the
Society.
 
Thanks for the opportunity.
 
****************************************************************************
 
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
 
Date:       28 Feb-1991 06:27pm EST
From:       Jeffrey S. Jalbert
            JALBERT_J
Dept:       VAX SIG
Tel No:     614-587-0157
 
TO:  David Johnson                        ( JOHNSON_D )
 
 
Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009070
 
David,
 
My apologies for the length of this.  A few words is what you asked for, I'm
afraid that I wrote a bit more than that.  My feelings on this subject are not
simple, Im afraid.
 
I realize that ADL is a hot topic.  I have had several calls about this very
same question.  My position is clear and reasonably consistent.
 
As a member of the original ODTF which constructed the current DECUS model, I
was quite surprised and taken aback when the suggestion came that that model
was broken.  I felt that the model should have worked.  I participated in the
early Management Council and things were working, at least at the start.
 
As the debate has progressed on this subject, it has become quite clear to me
that the current DECUS leadership process is broken at the upper levels.  The
debate itself and the way it has been carried out is evidence of that.
 
I believe I am an open person. At least, I think I believe in open processes.
The processes that have been used with respect to ADL have been uncomfortably
closed for my mind.
 
Now, I was aware of criticism of the entire audit process even before the
first committee meeting to draft an RFP took place.  Since this initial
criticism, the stridency of the critics' position and their tone has been quite
high.  It is difficult to have an open process when there is such extreme and
at times, venomous, criticism.
 
Thus, it seems to me that the upper management is broken and that the breaks
are due to the behavior on both sides of the issue.
 
The current leadership polarization is not at all acceptable.  A continuance
of that polarization for further study is not acceptable.  I believe that, at
this time, moving forward with ADL is the best of two alternatives.
 
As our past experience with organizational models suggests, any organizational
structure can fail.  What we must do is attempt to form a better and more open
process in the future.  For that we need people who have that as their vision
--------------------------------- NEW PAGE ---------------------------------

=[24H[K[24HPress RETURN to continue or EXIT SCREEN to exit[24;48H                                 [24;48H[24H[K[24H[;1m[m[20l7[r87[?6l8[15;1f[1;1f[J[m[20l7[r87[?6l8
heal our current divisions.

****************************************************************************

Date:       4-Mar-1991 05:04pm EST
From:       Emily Kitchen
            KITCHEN
Dept:       Symposia Committee
Tel No:     804-783-8613
 
TO:  David Johnson                        ( JOHNSON_D )
 
 
Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009083
 
Dave,  I think that the plan as fully annotated by ADL later has merit.  I
think that we should enlarge the BoD.  I expressed concerns from the
beginning as to how the Unit chairs would continue to have a place to
discuss common/conflicting issues.  The Management Council was a place that
that could be done.  As I said in my article, I think we must stop
bickering and get to the business of DECUS.  I do not believe that we
(DECUS) should be 'run' by Digital.  We should not do something because
they 'won't play' if we don't use their rules.  They are partners in the
effort, not the policy makers.

****************************************************************************

Date:       5-Mar-1991 10:07am EST
From:       Ralph Stamerjohn
            STAMERJOHN
Dept:       None
Tel No:     314 532-7708
 
TO:  David Johnson                        ( JOHNSON_D )
 
 
Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009085
 
Dave,
 
sorry for delay, I read your message and then got the flue while thinking
about the answer.
 
I personally will vote against the proposed bylaw changes. I see the need
for some evolutionary changes, but not the drastic measures being proposed.
 
Ralph
 
****************************************************************************

D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

Date:       6-Mar-1991 08:52pm EST
From:       Jim Welborne 
            WELBORNE 
Dept:       HOME:(219) 879-3584
Tel No:     WORK: 219-232-3992

TO: See Below

Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009113

Dave:

My reply would be C I do not believe reorganization is a good thing at this 
time.

My addtional remark would be:

We should spend our time pursuing how we must change our products and services 
to be more in touch with the computing profession.

Jim

****************************************************************************



So much for factual reporting. Everything I have presented above is directly
quoted. As a long-term member of DECUS, and one who has spent two
years on the Management Council, I would like to editorialize for a
couple of minutes. I want to emphasize that what follows is my own
assessment of the situation.

First, DECUS has always tried mightily to be a concensus organization. In
that respect we are patterned after Digital. When we find ourselves at
odds, it is standard practice to discuss the issue to death, until we
can reach a concensus (even if only a negotiated one). There is a
definite feel that we are ignoring this tradition with respect to the
reorganization issue; that we are rushing to judgement. Something is
wrong when we choose to do that, or are forced to do that.

If there were something critically amiss in DECUS, taking immediate 
action would be warranted; but that is not the case. Certainly there
are serious issues ahead of us...but none are so time-critical that we
should suspend our normal "grind it up" philosophy.

Second, one important result of the proposed reorganization will be to
wipe out a set of checks and balances that have been in place for some
time now. It would be similar, I think, to dispensing with the Senate
and governing with the House of Representatives. The Board is elected
by the membership at large; theoretically, that gives them a mandate
from the grass roots. In practice, so little information is dispensed
to the membership at large that the voting tends to depend more on
name recognition than on issues. The Management Council, on the other
hand, is drawn from senior leadership, and is composed of the best
of the operating units, the "doers" of the Society. They currently
balance the Board; that balance will be lost. 

It may be that a reorganization of DECUS is in the best interests of
the Society. But it is likely, in my judgement, that it should take
place in a manner quite different from what is being proposed. And
it certainly should take place slowly, with much discussion.

Haste can make disaster.


****************************************************************************

D E C U S -I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

Date:       6-Mar-1991 08:52pm EST
From:       Jim Welborne 
            WELBORNE 
Dept:       HOME:(219) 879-3584
Tel No:     WORK: 219-232-3992

TO: See Below

Subject:    RE: Candidate's Statement
Doc Number: 009113

Dave:

My reply would be C I do not believe reorganization is a good thing at this 
time.

My addtional remark would be:

We should spend our time pursuing how we must change our products and services 
to be more in touch with the computing profession.

Jim