Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!sharkey!nstar!inland!deck From: deck@inland.com Newsgroups: comp.org.decus Subject: Re: DECUS Board of Directors Election Message-ID: <667.27d6718f@inland.com> Date: 7 Mar 91 16:59:58 GMT Organization: Inland Steel Research Labs; East Chicago, IN Lines: 416 ************************************************************** 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