🚀 go-pugleaf

               <<< EISNER::DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< DECUServe Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 340.142                The DECUS reorganization                  142 of 145
EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair"  84 lines   1-MAY-1991 15:05
           -< ENfranchisement; what's missing; near-term prognosis >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Hmm, Notes/EVE won't let me cut-and-paste from a more-than-one note
    conveniently, so I'll wing this; please forgive me if I misstate
    someone's opinion, it is NOT my intent.)
    
    Larry Stone's point about disenfranchisement of volunteers in .138 is
    well-taken.
    
    Mike T. made a comment about an observed correlation between people who
    oppose the reorg, and people who support disenfranchisement of members.
    I don't agree, or I don't observe it.  As a reorg opponent, I support
    *EN*franchisement of members.  If the present proposal had three
    additional attributes I would most likely support it.  I'm sure that,
    to varying degrees and with somewhat different attribute-choices, the 
    same is true of a tremendous majority of the DECUS leadership.  The 
    work has NOT BEEN DONE -- has not even *attempted* to be done -- to 
    bring about this consensus.
    
    (My three attributes, if anyone cares:
      1. Improved "voter education" -- at a minimum, lifting some of the
         current rules and regs which effectively (sometimes through
         misinterpretation, but still effectively) disable voters' ability
         to understand what Board members -- and bylaw proposals! --
         represent, in full dialog.
      2. A member-initiated recall mechanism for Board members.  Most (if
         not all) units have a method by which their volunteers (and, at
         least in some cases, their broad membership) can recall officers
         and steering-committee members -- the people those officers and
         steering-committee members report to.  Elected Board members
         report to the Chapter membership and should be recallable through
         some method which has a high entry-threshold (to minimize nuisance
         efforts) but which is achievable (to give it teeth).  Engineering
         such a mechanism will take time.  An effort was made to put a
         watered-down member-recall mechanism in the proposal before you
         today, but the Board rejected it.  I'm glad they did because I
         don't think it adequately met the above criteria.  The engineering
         of that failed mechanism was attempted in, what (help me other
         DCSers), 3-4 weeks?  DECUS needs more than that.
      3. *Either* leadership consensus that the change makes sense, *OR*
         documentable, squeaky-clean methodologies used to arrive at it
         that are fully open to member scrutiny.
      4. (Optional but highly desirable) Inclusion of external experts on
         the Board in some capacity, to give us the industry-wide
         perspective that can help keep us from tunnel-vision planning.
    )
    
    Someone (forgive me, I don't recall who) raised the issue of getting
    DECUS' work done, vs. this political debate.  Mike T. was right when he
    said when you have 2 people, you have politics.  *MOST* DECUS
    volunteers want very badly to do their real work; we don't have time to
    do this nonsense.  (While I find it an interesting exercise in
    management skills and interpersonal skills and organizational
    development, I simultaneously am trying to help launch 2 UIGs, run
    my own business, and give my family life (which is frankly my top
    priority) the amount and quality of attention it needs and deserves.  
    This is not the time for "interesting exercises" but since I care 
    about whether or not I will be able to successfully launch those 2 
    UIGs into something I'll want to participate in in the future,
    I feel I have to put effort into the reorg question.)
    
    There is NO WAY that passage of this proposal will permit the universe
    of DECUS volunteers to get back to "business as usual."  If this
    proposal passes, all the volunteers directly affected will be consumed
    with shuffling their organizations around to match the new scheme. 
    Organizations which report to, or depend on, those organizations will
    be flummoxed while all this large-scale Brownian motion goes on, since
    approval paths will be unclear, etc. -- look how long it takes DEC to
    adjust to a reorg in any of its divisions, and remember *those* people
    (DECfolk) work full-time and have full-time communication paths -- we
    don't.
    
    When I imagine the effort that will be expended in implementing this in
    the world of "DECUS time" (part-time volunteers who don't always
    communicate so well), my eyes glaze over.
    
    If this thing were really well thought-out and there were consensus
    about it, the implementation plan would be precise, clear, complete, 
    and there would be minimal confusion.  I don't see that happening with 
    this plan by 1 July -- sorry, gang -- many of the unit leaders don't
    have a clue how they will be expected to work or with whom.  There are
    no proposals that have been published that even create and populate the
    committees that will have to replace the Management Council.  Therefore
    what we will have is either (a) a big vacuum of operational leadership,
    or (b) an operational leadership structure that is dictated and rammed
    into place by a few Board members.  Not a pretty picture.
================================================================================
Note 340.143                The DECUS reorganization                  143 of 145
EISNER::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG Chair"  16 lines   1-MAY-1991 15:16
                              -< Whatta mess... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As if there were not enough controversy on all this, two technical
    flaws have been found in the ballot package as printed.
    
    The Concepts Document ends mid-word.
    
    The Bylaws are missing a verb in section 5.6.
    
    It is therefore not even certain that an affirmative vote on this
    package would be a valid affirmative vote.  The Board did not make the
    required 2/3 vote to put *this* package before the membership -- they
    voted to put the version _without_ these flaws out to vote.
    
    DECUS could conceivably have to cope with a legal challenge based on
    these problems, if the re-org is affirmed.  At minimum, it seems to 
    this non-lawyer that an *additional* bylaw change will be required to 
    insert the missing verb...