4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Vote No on CSI Governance Changes Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Institute Discussions » Vote No on CSI Governance Changes « Previous Next »

Author Message
Edith Washington, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: edith

Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Message from: Edith Washington, FCSI, CCS (Former Institute President)

I cannot support the restructuring proposal “as is”. The devil is in the details – and the details are lacking!!!

OPINIONS ON PROPOSED CSI RESTRUCTURING

Five Officers: Seems reasonable; except for the question of workload. Unless officers’ roles change they may be overloaded by committee and task team oversight? If officers still have this responsibility – that number may need to be reviewed.

Five Member Directors: Reducing the number of Board members is fine, but members need to clearly understand that the proposed restructuring takes away their right to elect Institute Director(s) from within their regions to serve on the Institute Board. Regions would be allowed to submit nominees; however, Board candidates (to be elected nationally) would be selected by a Nominating Committee controlled by the Board. Board members would be the majority on the Nominating Committee. This essentially eliminates members’ ability to determine who serves on the Board. It has been said that regions may nominate potential board members. With the Board controlling the Nominating Committee no one will be nominated for office that isn’t willing to go along with the cliché in power.

Two at-Large Directors from the Business Community (Selected by the Board): This would seem to be advantageous, as long as persons are selected bring knowledge and expertise that supports the programs and goals of the Institute and comply with CSI Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Agreements.

Elimination of the Executive Committee: A positive move. This will ensure that all Board members are involved in information sharing and decision making from start to finish.

Three Committees of the Board:

Evaluation and Compensation Committee: From the standpoint of the Executive Director’s evaluation this seems reasonable. The evaluation should be conducted in a fair and objective manner using forms and formats that provide for objective rather than subjective assessment.

Finance Committee: The Treasurer and the President-Elect already participate in Finance Committee budgeting meetings (which means there are already two Board representatives involved in that process). The Treasurer participates in all Finance Committee meetings and serves as Board liaison to that Finance Committee. If we do not have the fiscal resources to address all the priorities established by the Board, placing three Board members on the Finance Committee isn’t going to put any money in the bank. If the Board controls the Finance Committee where are our checks and balances?

Nominating Committee: Board control of the Nominating Committee IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! Currently, regions control who serves on nominating. Our bylaws require the members of this committee be nominated by regions. That means grass roots control and opportunity for change. The current proposal means board control and opportunity for people of same mindset to remain in power indefinitely

Visioning Summit: Hopefully, such a session would bring forth new ideas; and suggestions for addressing current and future trends and industry impacts; however, a Visioning Summit cannot replace genuine on-going connections to members. In addition to the summit, have we looked at the possibility of having a Presidents’ Council (consisting of all chapter presidents)? This Council could meet via Webex (as well as at Convention) to be updated on Institute changes, initiatives and activities; serve as a focus group for new ideas and market analysis for CSI products and services; and provide a direct link to chapters as the Institute works to advance its programs and goals. In the past, leaders often climbed the Chapter, Region, Institute ladder to leadership. This Council would be a new avenue for identifying and advancing leaders.

Have we looked at restoring the communications links that once existed between or major committees (Education (now Professional Development), Technical, and Certification at Chapter, Region and Institute. Membership Committee links are being revived; but, what about the others?

While the Governance Task Team and the Board are to be commended for their efforts; a two month communications blitz does not provide a solid foundation for a change that will impact the future of this organization for decades to come.

Suggestion: Provide members with a more detailed plan. In addition to the input currently being received (via forums), conduct a facilitated forum at Convention; and modify the proposal, based on member input.

QUESTIONS???

WHY do we need to prevent regions from electing directors?

Why is it important to destroy this connection? If directors are overloaded assuming dual responsibilities as both Region Directors and Institute Board members, then let Regions elect persons who serve only as Institute Board members and choose other administrators for their regions.

WHAT assurances do we have that we will have a diverse board that truly reflects our industry and our membership?

WHY does the Board need to control the Nominating Committee?
Do the same people, and those who see things their way, need to control CSI forever? After their terms expire, they can just nominate more of the same.

HOW will future board members be impacted by this decision?
Knowing that their fellow directors control their opportunity to become a CSI officer, may impact how Board members relate to each other and how they vote on issues.

WHAT’S really stopping CSI from turning on a dime? Is it the size of the Board or our fiscal status? New programs and initiatives cost. Each year priorities and budgets must be established and followed. Again, changing the structure will not be any huge sums of money in the bank.

Proponents of this change say that it will make CSI more entrepreneurial. We’ve taken some entrepreneurial risks over the past decade and lost millions of dollars (especially on the change to our convention and Perspective). Are we sure this is the most appropriate model?

We’ve heard much about a survey. Where are the quantitative and qualitative results of this survey?

There has long been a segment of our leadership that feels it does not need to listen to our members. It is time to close the communications gap. If we going to make change, let us make that change with opportunities for full discussion – not one way communication. This is supposed to be the type of discussion that takes place in region caucuses at conventions, and at chapter board meetings.

Now is the time to make your voice heard.

Please VOTE NO on the proposed restructuring.
It IS NOT just about reducing the size of the Board!

If in doubt – Ask yourself: “Would I let someone tear my house down, without a reasonably clear picture of what my new home was going to look like?

Better yet – If my roof is leaking, why am I tearing out my foundation?
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 269
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Letter from Sal Verrastro:

The Governance Issue:

I have tried to remain quiet and neutral on this topic but it occurred to me that my silence might
be perceived as support. While this may seem to be a trivial issue to many members, I can assure
you that nothing can be further from the truth. There is much to discuss about this issue, but
there are little time and little space in this article. I have chosen to address only the major points.

While I respect the intentions of the current Institute board, I have not seen anything submitted, printed or stated that has convinced me that this proposal for a governance change is a good one, and further more, many of my questions went unanswered. To make matters worse, the
information sent to us as members are at best misleading and one-sided.

I have asked myself, how can 29 people unanimously agree on an issue that I view as somewhat
appalling? Many of the board members have my utmost respect and I would normally agree with
them on most issues. But when I compare this issue with past important issues, I am reminded
that 29 intelligent people made the destructive decision to move our National Convention to
Chicago for three years in a row and the same people agreed move the National Convention from
June to April and the same people voted to spend and waste millions of dollars on “Perspective”
which largely is responsible for getting CSI in the financial hole that exists today. So when the
Board’s only selling point is that they were “unanimous” in their support for this issue and does
not back it up with facts, there is no substance.

The Size of the Board. The claim is that the board is too large. Nonsense! There are no
substantial facts to support this claim. There are only theories. In my mind, a smaller board is
more likely to make mistakes faster and more often and the fact is that we as members will have
less representation at the institute board level under this new proposal. I for one think the size of
the board is fine and really believe that a larger board might actually serve CSI better.

The largest disagreement and most important issue that I have with this new proposal is the
restructuring of the Institute Nominating Committee. As a current member of the nominating
committee, representing all regions, not just the Middle Atlantic, I know first hand how
important it is to keep the Nominating Committee separate from the current Board of Directors.
The most common method of Nominating Committees for nonprofit organizations is the way it is
currently structured in CSI. The new proposal would have the Current Board in control of the
Nominating Committee and their nominations. Therefore the current board can just re-nominate
themselves and overlook many potential qualified members. The new proposal opens the door to
foster “a good-ol-boy” network, and even further the distance between the membership and the
board. This one change alone is a deal-breaker for me and should be for all CSI members.

The saddest aspect of this new proposal is the way it was presented to the membership. Selling
“gloom and doom” if it doesn’t pass is a very unprofessional way to convince anyone to buy into
an idea. Some of the board members who have stated this are the same people who sold us on
the “three year Chicago Convention” debacle. There is no doom and gloom for CSI. Yes we are
on a down slide but that is due in part to the Institute’s lack of providing enough quality
affordable education to our membership. Instead our leaders have wasted time and money on
failed programs; programs which do not benefit the membership and from not throughly
analyzing proposals prior to sending it out to the membership. If this Governance Proposal did
not require your vote, it would be in effect today and you would not have the opportunity to
change it. Regardless of what you have been told, this proposal cannot be reversed. This
proposal will not enhance our core values and, in fact, may diminish them.

Be sure to fully read and understand ALL the components of the Governance change. I am sure
you will find other items of concern. Your vote on this issue will decide on the entire package as
presented, not individual components. In other words, it is an all or nothing vote.

You will in the next few days receive a ballot for the upcoming election which will include the
Governance Proposal. I encourage you to vote NO for the Governance Proposal and in addition
please vote for one of the candidates on the ballot and avoid any write-in candidates. The
Nominating Committee worked very diligently to select the most qualified candidates for this
election. Therefore out of respect for those individuals listed, please select from the names that
your membership-based and membership-represented Nominating Committee has selected.

Salvatore Verrastro, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, NCARB
Former Institute Director of the Middle Atlantic Region
Member of the Allentown Chapter CSI
Member of the Institute Nominating Committee
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 270
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Letter from Jerry Litwin:

From: "Jerry Litwin" <jlitwin@caseygrouparch.com
Date: 2007/02/13 Tue AM 09:38:03 CST
To:
Subject: CSI Governance the other side

To all:

I do not know if you are for or against the proposed Bylaws Governance
Amendment. Institute has sent out many memos for the PRO side.

Here is a memo that looks at the other side - CON. In fairness to our
members, all I am asking is for you to pass this memo on to other
members, so everyone can make a truly informed decision.

Ask yourself these questions:

Why will the proposed new board improve what the public knows
about CSI?

Why people in the construction industry are not running to join
CSI, like people joining USGBC or PMI?

Is Institute listening to your concerns and needs now? and how
will a smaller board improve their listening?

I ask that you vote, and more importantly become more involved in
speaking to non-CSI members about CSI every chance you get - such as,
talking to non-CSI product reps who visit your office about CSI and
giving them a membership packet.

Thanks,

Jerry Litwin, CSI, CCCA
Associate, Senior Project Manager
The Casey Group Architects
253-584-5207 Fax 253-581-9720

Attached Memo by Jerry Litwin Dated 02/12/2007:

CSI wants to be the “leading” organization in the construction industry. There are people who feel the only way to achieve this goal is to reduce the size of the Institute’s governing board. I feel that the size of the board is irrelevant and not the cause of CSI’s current poor performance.

CSI will grow when we create a tangible method of implementing our Core Values:

Recruit and Retain a Diverse Membership
Sustain Equality among Members
Continually Improve the Process of Construction
Be an enduring benefit to our Members and to the Construction Community

How will the proposed board enhance and reinvigorate our core values? IT WON’T.

How will the proposed board align and reinforce our core values? IT WILL NOT.

CSI membership is declining because CSI has failed to make useful and important contributions to many of their members’ lives; NOT due to the size of the board.

CSI is doing poorly financially, selling its programs and products, and attracting people to its education programs because we have not educated our members and the general public on who, what and why CSI exists; NOT due to the size of the board.

CSI’s main event has lost its stature because we have not convinced our members and the public that the CSI Show is the best, unique and meaningful; NOT due to the size of the board.

CSI takes too long to launch new programs and projects because the Board waits for the outside world to tell them what to do rather than continually getting new ideas from our members; NOT because of the board size.

As a member of a 25 person executive board for my local Boys & Girls Clubs, we manage a 4 million dollar annual budget serving 25,000 youth in a community of 500,000. My primary task is not governing, but to be a champion for them to the local community. CSI and our board have forgotten their primary task – selling CSI. A large board with people throughout the country is better able to champion CSI than the proposed small board.
Entrepreneurial (taking risks to make a profit) companies (like 3M, GE, Marriott, Boeing, IBM) do not ignore reality, but use their own self-defined ideology and ambitions to guide them in all of their dealings with reality. Making a profit is the result of serving their core values; and these are very profitable and long-lived companies who are constantly evolving and changing.

If CSI wants to have an effective board, we need to have a coherent and incremental leadership training program that starts the day a member joins and develops people who believe in and accomplish our core values. This requires a large number of mentors who have served on the board; the proposed board will only provide a trickle of mentors.

If CSI wants to be the “Leading” organization in the construction industry, we need to talk less and act more. Everyday we need to develop programs and products that come from within rather than from outside. CSI needs to encourage and reward our members who try new ideas and succeed. This requires a large board which creates a reasonable opportunity for advancement to the top. (Three per year is too few!!)

A smaller board

Limits the potential of having sufficient number of innovative and pragmatic leaders
Increases the burden of time on the volunteer board members
Will not improve the ability to make better decisions or save CSI
Will not create a more forward looking or entrepreneurial organization
Visionary organizations have active and clear strategies that bring their core values to life.

The current board’s inability to function and focus is a symptom; NOT the cause of CSI’s problem. Reducing the board size is not the cure. CSI is in a perilous position because it lacks the internal structure to promote and implement continual renewal and growth.

I ask you to vote NO on the Governance Change Bylaws Amendment because we need many people going up to the board and returning to the chapters to keep our members inspired and encouraged, and a feeling they belong to a great, visionary organization.

Jerry Litwin, CSI, CCCA, Member of Institute’s Professional Development Committee
Past President Mt. Rainier chapter & Current Program Chair
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 271
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

CSI WSE:

2007 Election Governance Con
http://www.csiwse.org/en/1594454

Response To Dennis Hall’s Letter by:
Phillip L. McDade FCSI, CCS, FASLA, Former Institute President

I was offended to see that yours and my membership dues to CSI paid for that recent doomsday propaganda which was generated by Dennis Hall. Our Region Website Manager, Randall Lewis, asked if I would prepare a letter with an opposing point of view to be posted on the website.

Unfortunately, a recent turn of events prohibits me from putting in the time to do this task properly. However, I did receive the following letter from Dick Eustis today. Being an engineer by trade, Dick is a very detailed person. He picks apart much of the "propaganda" with history and FACTS. There is a detailed history of changes in CSI plus additional commentary/ reports that can be viewed in the Newsletter section of the Maine Chapter website www.mecsi.org.

I invite you to consider Mr. Eustis’ comments, below. Hopefully, you’ll see this issue as we do and will not be intimidated by the "we’re swinging over hell on a rotten vine" sayers.
-------------------------------------------------

CSI Governance "One Member’s Opinion" February 2007
By Richard A. Eustis, PE, FCSI, CCCA,
Former Institute President,
Editor - Mainely Specs (Maine Chapter CSI)

When this year’s Institute ballot arrives, one of the issues requiring a vote is an amendment to the Institute Bylaws. The proposed change to the Bylaws is very extensive and if approved will make a major change in the governance of our national organization and the way that our leadership is elected.

Although I agree with the basic concept of reducing the size of the Institute Board, I do have some very strong reservations about the process and the apparent loss of the connections between the Institute Leadership and the individual member.

Currently, the makeup of the Institute Board is guaranteed to have nearly equal numbers of "Professional" and "Industry/Associate" members. This distribution of membership classifications is not to suggest each has a constituency but rather that members working in different segments of the industry bring different perspectives to Board discussions. CSI membership represents all parties involved with the design/construction process and we need this diverse group participating in Board discussions. The proposed bylaws amendment eliminates any assurance of any reasonable apportionment by membership classification.

Currently the Board includes Institute Directors for all CSI Regions thus providing direct input of the differences that exist in practices in different parts of this country. This also provides for a logical progression for an interested member to move for Chapter activity to Region activity and then on to Institute activity. The proposed bylaws amendment would eliminate any Region representation as all Institute Directors would be elected on a national basis without any connection to the individual Regions. Today, there is a good opportunity to know candidates for whom you are asked to vote but that will change when future candidates come from a national pool.

Of even greater concern to me is the proposed change in the membership of the Institute Nominating Committee. If the bylaws amendment is approved, the future Institute Nominating Committees will consist of 5 members, with a minimum of 3 being current Institute Board Members. Note, this is a minimum so that if the Board desired, the entire Nominating Committee could be incumbent Institute Board Members. No matter if it is my local Rotary Club, my municipal government or the Institute, I do not think it is appropriate for the incumbents to define who will be on the ballot. The Nominating Committee should continue to be totally independent of the current Board as it now is.

Under the proposed bylaws amendment, the future Institute Finance Committee would be 5 members with a minimum of 3 being incumbent Board members. Again, this is a minimum and the Finance Committee could all be Board Members. I believe the Institute Finance Committee should be an independent "watch dog" as it now is rather than being a part of a very small group that they should be monitoring for the benefit of the organization. Whatever happened to the concept of "Checks and Balances".

I also have a concern about the combining of the Secretary and Treasure positions into a single position. Having served as Institute Secretary, I know the amount of work that the Secretary should do and it is hard to believe that one member could perform both jobs if they did the work that should be expected of the position. Possibly the work that we should expect our elected officers to perform is not being done or is being relegated to a Staff Members.

Adding to this was a letter all Institute Members received from Dennis Hall, FCSI, FAIA, SCIP which appeared to suggest the membership was incapable of drawing their own conclusion after viewing the proposed Bylaws and was somewhat threatening as to the outcome if you did not subscribe 100% allegiance to the Institute Board and voted as he mandated. Further, the letter contained several inaccurate statements relative to our history. I have been assured by our Institute President Edd Soenke that the language and content of that letter was never approved by the Institute Executive Committee for distribution and that a replacement would be sent to the membership.

As you can see by the above comments, although I concur with the idea with the reduction in the size of the Institute Board, I do not agree with much of the proposed change to the Institute Bylaws and intend to vote against the change. Our CSI history shows that if this proposal is defeated, a new proposal will be developed that keeps the basic concept but eliminates the feature that many members find objectionable.

In this Member’s Opinion, the readers of this article should each carefully study the proposed change and vote in accord with own opinion of how the proposed change to the bylaws will impact the organization to which they belong. Each member needs to vote their own belief, not mine, not Dennis Hall’s or not any other member but you do need to vote. CSI is our organization and we all have a stake in its future. We should not vote a specific way because of threats of a "dooms-day scenario" but because each of us thinks it is the right direction. In the "From our History" section of this Newsletter, we are reprinting some CSI "Firsts". Many of these were the result of changes in the CSI Bylaws and not all passed the first time they were proposed. Most required "grassroots" contributions before they were approved by the required percentage of the voting membership. The membership needs to be heard as to what they would like as governance.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 272
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Letter from 15 Past Presidents of the Institute:

(It's in tabular format so you'll have to open the article)

http://res.csiwse.org/res/a/26177/VOTE%20NO%20ON%20CSIBYLAWS%20CHANGES214.pdf

Jerome Alciatore, FCSI, CCS, AIA (New Orleans, LA)

Phillip L. McDade, FCSI, CCS, FASLA (Jackson, MS)

Stanley Bair, FCSI, CCS, FAIA (Houston, TX)

Donald D. Meisel, FCSI (Philadelphia, PA)

Charles “Chief” Boyd, FCSI, CCS (Tulsa, OK)

Robert Molseed, FCSI, FAIA, CCS (Annandale, VA)

Richard A. Eustis, PE, FCSI, CCCA (Old Town, ME)

Weldon W. Nash, FCSI, CCS (Dallas, TX)

John Fleck, FCSI (Indianapolis, IN)

Richard B. Solomon, FCSI, CCS (Coconut Grove, FL)

George S. George, PE, FCSI, CDT (Needham, MA)

Howard R. Steinmann, FCSI, CDT (Madison, WI)

Sheldon B. Israel, FCSI, CCS (Boyton Beach, FL)

Edith J. Washington, FCSI, CCS (Toledo, OH)

Thomas I. Young, FCSI, CCS (Grosse Pointe, MI)
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 273
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Answers by Past President Gary Betts to Questions posed by Past President John Fleck:

From: "Gary Betts" <GBetts@lshchicago.com>
Date: January 24, 2007 2:56:36 PM EST
To: "John Fleck" <jcfleck@sbcglobal.net>

Subject: RE: Questions

John,

Please forgive me for taking so long to respond to your questions, I hope you can understand that my life has not been my own for the last few weeks. I will try to address your questions in order.

1. Each year each region will be able to submit names of those they feel qualified for open director positions on the board. There is no
stipulated number of names to be submitted to the nominating committee.

The board may establish policies during the transition that further defines the process, to allow for flexibility and let the board react to
changing conditions, we felt that that level of detail should not be included in the bylaws.

2. This language is not a change from the current bylaws and, in this case, would mean that the committee would verify that they are members
in good standing. Again, during the transition, the board may institute policies that are intended to maintain our geographic diversity or representation of member classifications and these
requirements would then become part of the validation process as well.

3. The nominating committee would select at least two candidates for each open position, they could select more depending on the circumstances. As I mentioned in item 2, if the board sets targets as
policy (and I believe they will after many of the compelling arguments made on the forums) geographic diversity, member classification, etc
would become part of the criteria but most important, the nominating committee will be tasked with selecting potential directors based on
their leadership in the industry and business acumen. I also want to mention, nomination by petition is still possible. If the petitions are
valid, those names would have to appear on the ballot. (I know of two such nominations for president or president elect that were successful)

I would recommend that the timing of nomination by petition be changed so it would be allowed after the nominating committee had made its selections. Not unlike provisions for taking nominations from the floor allowed by Roberts Rules.

4. During the transition, it is anticipated that the nominating committee will be selected, as all other committees, by the executive committee from recommendations made by the directors. During the
transition, the board will develop policies that will provide guidance on the election of the members of the committee. I think it will be
very similar to the way the members of the Audit committee are currently selected. Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, nominations are
made by the members of the board, for the audit committee, the board has stipulated in policy that each year of tenure on the board be represented on the committee by at least one member. The board will have to establish the policy for selection of the members of the committee that are not currently board members. Policy already exists
stipulating the qualifications required to serve on the nominating committee.

5. With a board of 12, I think it unlikely but, does anything currently prevent that from happening? No. The nominating committee will be
charged not only with selecting candidates for the board but also play a major role in leadership development and identifying and nurturing future leaders. Region leadership also has a major role to play and they will work closely with the nominating committee to ensure top quality leadership. If this process is not self-correcting, the board will create policies to ensure that goals are met. Not unlike several
years ago when the nominating committee selected the entire slate to run unopposed, the board adopted policy to prevent that from happening in
the future.

6. For the most part, that responsibility has been delegated to the Executive Director or other staff. A policy statement approved at the
November board meeting created limits beyond which two signatures are required and also identifies which officer signatures are allowed.

Since I am no longer on the board, I do not have the details in front of me but could get them for you if you like. During discussions with our
attorney, I asked about which documents, under Maryland law, would require the seal of the Institute, under our bylaws the seal is held by
the Secretary, she could not identify any.

7. The process for nominating officers was not changed from the current bylaws. Based on criteria established by the nominating committee,
names of those that qualify for nomination are assembled by the nominating committee, all are contacted and those willing to serve are
identified, interviewed and selected. As I mentioned above, the nominating committee will also be responsible for nurturing and
developing the future leaders of the Institute and I am sure will develop guidelines and policies that ensure CSI will have qualified
candidates to choose from.

Concluding statements: The proposed structural changes are only part of the recommendation approved by the board. I refer to it as the enabling mechanism that will allow the board to make the cultural change from a constituency based governance structure to an entrepreneurial leadership form more efficiently and effectively. Many of the recommended changes will be made even if this recommendation fails, but I believe they will not be as effective or be able to make the cultural shift required to gain full benefit. That said, this is an effort to make the board more member focused not less. The visioning summit is only one way of gaining member input.

The summit was envisioned as a time to both
nurture future leaders as well as a time to "futurize" and advise the board. With today's technology, it is possible to get instant member
feedback on CSI products and services as well as structured member needs assessments, the goal was to provide a structure where each member within the organization can be seen as in a network where they are given opportunities to inform and advise the CSI leaders and to provide new directions counsel. This can only be accomplished through direct communications processes with the entire membership rather than a process that relies on communications links through region representatives.

Directors at Large: These are intended to be leaders in the overall construction industry, they may or may not be CSI members, they would become members while serving on the board. The intent was to broaden the vision of the board, to look outside CSI for inspiration as well as conditions that will impact our members. As an organization, we have spent a good deal of time with an inward focus, this is an attempt to focus not only on the future but the entire industry to see what
opportunities, threats, or other impacts that may affect our members.

Dual Roles: I feel that not only was it the dual roles directors were forced to play but the perception that they represented a specific
constituency that has prevented us from moving forward and implementing well intentioned efforts to change the way we do things.

I know you have reservations, nothing is ever perfect or born fully grown. I will admit, the process was awkward; the board crafted a
recommendation on how the new board should be structured and authorized changing the bylaws only to the extent that they needed to be revised to
implement the change. I did not have a charge to rewrite the entire bylaws. Our attorney recommended additional changes, they make a lot of
sense and, if this passes, there may be a call for a major effort to revise the bylaw to make them more consistent in level of detail and concept. The bylaws revisions were not overly detailed, as recommended by our legal council, in order to allow the board to be resilient, adaptable, and flexible, able to adjust to a changing environment as required. We could have created a formula in the bylaws to ensure directors and officers were selected in a manner that maintained both
our geographic diversity and balance of membership classification. That formula could ultimately force the nominating committee to make a
selection that was not in the best interest of the Institute. Allowing the board, during the transition, to craft policy to deal with these
issues was thought to be more prudent, it allows the board to consider many of the thoughtful suggestions posted in the forums as well as
change policy when needed to adjust to quickly changing conditions with out having to go through the process of a bylaws change.

I know you have given this recommendation a great deal of thought. I hope my responses above have moved you to feel that, over all, this is a
good thing. It is structured to be molded and changed, adjusted by application of carefully considered policies to create a governance
structure that truly brings the members and the leaders of the organization closer together. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions.

Submitted for your consideration with respect,

Gary Betts FCSI, CCS, AIA
Principal
Loebl Schlossman & Hackl
312-565-4546 Direct
312-565-5912 Fax
www.lshdesign.com

-----Original Message-----

From: John Fleck [mailto:jcfleck@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Gary Betts
Subject: Questions

Gary, I am trying my best to vote in the affirmative for the proposed recommendation for change in governance, however there are some
questions that bother me and my vote and recommendation to others will hinge on the answers to these ???

1. Is it true that each of the ten regions will each year submit to the nominating committee (NC) the names of two persons for election to the Board?

2. The nominating committee will "validate" the candidates for consideration as directors. What is the validation criteria?

3. NC then selects 2 validated nominees names for the term of each retiring director. What is the basis for selection by the NC of those chosen for nomination; geographic representation, professional or industry status, other qualifications to meet the needs of the
Institute (in the opinion of the NC), other?

4. How, and by whom is the nominating committee selected?

5. Is it possible for the selected director nominees (2 from each region) to be from the same region and be elected?

6. Is the Secretary/Treasurer the only signatory to contracts and agreements/ I may have missed it, but I did not see more than one.

7. How and by whom are the Institute officers selected / elected? Does the NC control this activity as well? I read in new Article.4.a,b,c
about nomination by petition as being a "may" condition. What are the other methods of officer nominee selection? Does the board, as a whole,
meet to discuss nominees with in-put to the NC as to successful candidates for election? If so, does it say so anywhere?

I interpret the proposed changes to mean an actual strengthening of the region in the "governance" of the member/chapter, with more liaison between regions than with members, except I do see an effort through the annual "summit meeting of chapter officers, etc." as an effort to "stay in touch". I feel there should be more than one such meeting / teleconference between board and chapters each year. I also, upon further consideration, feel that the proposed board make-up is satisfactory, except I am still uncomfortable with the selection of the
non-CSI board members.

I also agree that having the directors having a dual role of serving the region/chapter, and the Institute made their ability to govern the
Institute an almost impossible task. In retrospect, this is the primary reason I have been so disappointed in many of the past directors, with perhaps more of their concern directed to member and region rather than Institute governance.

As you can see my primary uneasiness about all of this is centered around the NC and their future ability to, in time, create a hierarchy of control without the members or even the directors being able to alter or change, except by petition. Change by petition is not a satisfactory means of forcing change.

Please respond as soon as possible to ease my troubled mind. Thanks, and Happy New Year.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 274
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Letter from Baltimore Chapter CSI to the Institute Board:

Message from the Officers and Directors

Memorandum

To: CSI Officers and Board of Directors
From: Baltimore Chapter CSI
Date: 9 February 2007
Re: Proposed Board Restructuring

We, the Officers and Directors of the Baltimore Chapter CSI, in response to the proposed By-Laws Change Proposal, offer the following reply:

During our 48-year history, Baltimore Chapter CSI has been proactive and an outspoken supporter of the Institute. While we acknowledge the need
to reduce the size of the current Institute Board of Directors, we are not convinced that the proposed changes to the By-Laws are well advised or beneficial to the membership at-large.

1. Officers: With the pressures currently being experienced by the Officers, combining the positions of secretary and treasurer into one
position does not seem to be a logical action. How does doubling one person’s responsibilities make that position more manageable? It seems
that current Institute Officers understand the demands on their time when they run for election.

2. Directors: The proposed change has five at large directors, nominated by the Board in power and elected by a membership who does not know
the nominees. This situation has the potential to create greater distance between the membership and the Board instead of providing the
membership with greater access to the Board.

A. Preferred Option: If the Region Directors are overly taxed when serving as both Region Directors and Institute Directors, limit the Board to one voting Director from each region, thereby decreasing the number of Board members to slightly more than half of the current Board. It should be left to the Regions to decide whether
this Institute Director is also a Region Director or a third person selected from the Region Leadership.

3. At-Large Directors: Adding 2 Directors from outside the construction community or at least outside of CSI is an interesting idea. Many
corporations use this enterprise with much success. However, if the desire is to streamline the Board, why not make these two positions non-voting? After all, the intention is to get their feedback and input, not to give them
more say in Institute affairs than the rank-and-file membership.

4. Nominating Committee: This has traditionally been a group of individual members, not Board members, who worked independently from the Board, though with Board oversight. Nominations are limited to the position of Officers as the Director positions are determined on the Region
level. This system is not broken. Do not ‘fix’ it. If the proposed Board make-up were to be instituted, it is critical that the Nominations Committee be made up of rank-and-file members, not Institute Board Members.

5. Finance Committee: This group provides oversight of the Board. It should not be populated by Board members who would be overseeing
themselves. This system is not broken. Do not ‘fix’ it.

6. Visioning Sessions: This has a great deal of positive potential. Participants should be selected by Chapter and Region leadership — not
just Chapter Presidents and Region Leaders. More details are required in order for our membership to submit an opinion.

Summary: It has taken the Institute’s Board many years, along with the time and expense of an outside consulting firm, to reach a unanimous
decision. Despite being told that CSI members were polled during this process, our Chapter appears to have been left out of this polling. We do
not question the Board members’ motives or intentions. We are simply overwhelmed by the Board’s proposal. The fact that the other options
presented by the membership are striking a chord within all of us only adds to our concerns. It appears that any alternative put forth by members is immediately dismissed by Board Members. We are not interested in holding up a needed change, but have not been given many choices beyond a straight yes or no vote. We have been told that many of the details can be worked out in the
“implementation” phase, but this phase will apparently be conducted by the existing Board with seemingly little input from membership. This makes us very uncomfortable with recommending an adoption of the change. Should this measure pass and ultimately be against the best interests of
membership, we fear that a grassroots effort to overturn this decision will take decades. Previous Board decisions, such as holding The CSI Show
in Chicago in March/April for three consecutive years, have practically bankrupted our organization and left a membership lacking confidence in the Board’s decisions. Additionally, with no perceived direct representation,
we have concerns as to whether our voices will ever be heard.

The subject of redefining CSI’s governance was not as well publicized as other CSI activities during the past three years. CSI’s decision to close
discussion of the topic on CSI’s Forums to only Chapter leaders, and refusal to open the Forum to all CSI members, shows a lack of wisdom and
openness.

Until and unless our issues are effectively addressed, our Chapter Leaders have indicated that they intend to vote against the proposed changes, and recommend to our Chapter’s members to vote against this change. We do not wish to create a rift in the fabric of our organization. We do wish to see that the best possible decisions are made and put into effect for all of our benefits.

Respectfully submitted,
The Baltimore Chapter CSI
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 275
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Jerry Reed's 02/19/2007 Rebuttal to Bob Grabhorn's message endorsing the Governance Change:

Last week, Bob Grabhorn offered the five points listed below to support the Governance proposal. I shall address each one individually.

“#1. The board will have no executive committee, the division inferred of a superior being will be removed and the elected board will act as one body, without reference to region.”

Jerry: The new scheme board will more closely
resemble the current ExCom. We would be deleting the regionally elected Directors and electing 10 Board members from national at-large ballots
prepared by the nominating committee that is controlled by the Board…. The “us-them” relationship of the ExCom and Board, where the regionally elected Board brings balance and membership viewpoints will be replaced with a single minded Board with no dissent.

”#2. The smaller board will be meeting on a more frequent basis and be able to be more informed in a timely fashion and be able to react in a more
expedient fashion.”

Jerry: With current technology, if the “powers that be” wanted to keep 29 members informed, they could. However, meetings will be shorter and
decisions faster because there will be NO DISSENT. Only like minded members (or, if necessary, non-members) will be allowed to join the Aristocracy

”#3. Each region will now have two directors, with supporting funds provided by the institute, to work locally with each regions membership and be able to participate in more activities needed to help educate and work on the growth in
each region.”

Jerry: Region leadership can be separated from Institute Directors now. For over a decade the NorthCentral Region has had a Region Board
independent from chapter Presidents or Inst. Directors. The Institute has “talked” for many years of giving more, or at least some, support to the Region administration. The regions can and should stand alone.

”#4. Every year each region will be able to nominate for election qualified
individuals for election to the board.”

Jerry: We would be able to submit names of
qualified leaders to the Nomination Committee(current members of the Board)
who would determine if the candidates have enough prestige and the “right” viewpoint and decide if they will be put on the ballot. I contend that there are few members in the Great Lakes Region to whom that would be acceptable.

”#5. The nominated committee will be able to focus on selecting individuals with more knowledge of working on a board, and looking for directors with
potential for advancement within the board.”

Jerry: The Nomination Committee is a
“Committee of the Board”. That means they are already busy with the business of the Institute. Without regional representation, how will they have any idea of the potential of members who are willing to serve. They will simply select
members with some national prominence that agree with their direction.

I agree with Bob that ”The above 5 items are the most important issues”

PLEASE VOTE NO

Jerry Reed CSI CCPR
JerryReedc@aol.com
Anonymous
 
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 08:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Interesting Typo: In the document sent with the ballots under the Article titled "Nomination and Election of Officers and Directors" it says..."The Institute Nominating Committee shall be a committee of the board in accordance with Article VII of these Bylaws." When one goes to Article VII, it is titled "Disqualification of Officers and Directors." Is this an omen?
Linda Brown, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lbplexus

Post Number: 6
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Letter from Bob Teller, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, Candidate for Institute Secretary

Gilman's commentary reflects my own view of the current state of the organization and the concerns related to the governance proposal.

I have been encouraging our members to become as informed as possible on the governance proposal. There are some thorny issues concealed within the language that may be overlooked by the average member. As you know, I will be voting "No" on the proposal for what I believe to be sound opinions.

1. The membership has not had an opportunity to air the proposal, debate the pros and cons, hear from many who have been in the trenches working with Institute leadership, understand the pitfalls of a simple up or down vote on this issue and truly understand the long range implications inherent in this potential change in governance.

2. I believe in the need for change but, as Gilman points out, it needs to be fully explored at the grassroots level, not handed down from on high.

3. Out diversity is one of our greatest strengths. It is also our Achilles heel. When we try to be everything to everybody, we diminish the focus of our efforts. There are times when initiatives become watered down to make them more palatable to the general membership. One size will never fit all in CSI. Accepting that the Institute Board and ExComm are cumbersome in size and frequently have difficulty managing the organization and grappling with complex issues brought before the Board does not necessarily translate to dumping the system and downsizing the leadership team.

4. We are a democratic organization which aspires to the tenants of representative process. If we abandon any aspect of true reprentation we, in turn, curtail the very framework of governance that makes so vital to begin with. I know that you are tired of my saying this but the Institute and region levels of leadership exist to serve the members and support the chapters, not the other way around.

5. CSI has so much untapped potential - our current programs, our initiatives, the caliber of our leaders, the engaging quality of our members - no other professional organization can touch us when it comes to these merits, else why do we continue to renew our membership and pursue CSI's commitment to excellence.

The governance proposal is not dead if it does not pass. It will need to be taken up immediately by the next Board; reviewed; taken to the membership for review, discussion and healthy, articulate debate; weighed on the individual merits of each component of any proposed structural and operational changes and then, only then, brought before the membership for a vote.

If you so choose, please forward my comments as well but, by all means, get Gilman's thought out to our members.

Thanks,

Bob Teller
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs

Post Number: 197
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Holly,

A big THANK YOU for posting these reponses and making them available to the Forum's readers and contributors.

David Combs
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 276
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 03:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

A Letter from the Fort Worth TX Chapter:

February 5, 2007
Dear Fellow CSI Members:

Soon you will be receiving a voting packet for the annual CSI Elections. In addition to other voting
opportunities, the Fort Worth Chapter Board would like to call your attention to a particularly important issue which is being presented for a membership vote…the proposed change in Institute governance. By now you probably are aware of this proposal. Thus far, at least three official letters of support have been sent by our Institute and the most recent issue of Newsdigest Quarterly focused on the proposed changes.

What you may not be aware of is that a significant group of well-respected CSI Leaders, both past and
present do NOT support this proposed change as it is currently drafted.

The proposed governance proposal has been hotly debated on the CSI website forum since the plan was first announced in December 2006.

Unfortunately, many of you may not have seen the forum postings because access to this portion of the website was just recently made available to all members. Thus far, CSI-funded publicity has only provided one-sided, favorable spin information (some have called it propaganda) to the membership at large, thereby making it difficult for the majority of the membership to
make a well-informed decision.

The Fort Worth Chapter officers and directors have made a concerted effort to educate ourselves on the ramifications of the proposed governance changes and CAN NOT in good conscience support the
proposal as offered. Although we concur that some changes at the Institute level are needed and that this Initiative contains some very good points, it has been presented as an all or nothing proposition which, in our opinion, is deeply flawed. In particular, we take issue with the following proposed changes:

1. The proposed change eliminates regional representation. Currently, each of the ten regions has two directors (one professional and one industry member) that, for South Central Region,
function as the head of our region governance and as our representatives at the Institute level.
The budget for the Region Directors’ travel and expenses is funded by Institute. We feel that
this change increases the current divide between Institute and the local chapters making our
Institute less accessible and less responsive to our membership.

2. The proposed Institute Board structure includes two Board-appointed directors who are not CSI
members. We fail to see the benefit to our membership in bringing two directors who may have
no direct ties to the construction community onto the policy making board of a non-profit
construction related organization. This might make sense if we were a for-profit entity that
deals directly with the general public…but we aren’t. CSI exists for the benefit and betterment
of the construction industry and of our membership (who work in the construction industry).

3. Under the proposed change, the Institute Nominating Committee would become a committee of
the Board with 3 of the 5 committee members being members of the Board and the other two
members being appointed by the Board. Thus, those in office would have complete control over
those who are allowed to come into office.

4. The proposed change provides for the very real possibility that the Institute Board could be
stacked with members from a single geographic area since nominations would be “at large”
instead of by region.

5. The current balance that exists with representation from both Professional and Industry
members would be eliminated. Only the two Institute vice president positions would carry the
“professional” or “industry” classification (one each).

Fort Worth Chapter of
The Construction Specification Institute
P.O. Box 101, Ft. Worth, Texas 76101
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 277
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Ft. Worth Chapter has pointed out that I neglected to include Page 2 of their letter, so here it is:

6. Under the proposed change, the Finance Committee also becomes a committee of the board,
with 3 of the 5 committee members being members of the board and the other two members
being appointed. We believe that an independent Finance Committee should oversee the
financial affairs of the Institute.

7. The proposed Initiative eliminates chapter delegates to the Annual Convention. All members in
good standing, who are present at the convention, would be allowed to vote on issues presented.
This provides a distinct “ruling” advantage to those chapters and regions in proximity to the
convention site. And since the convention site is also determined by the board, this creates the
potential for even greater regional dominance in making policy.

8. There are members on your Chapter Board who strongly oppose the way this proposal has been
presented as an “all-or-nothing” ballot item, to the members in December just before the
holidays, and is being voted on in February without the opportunity for discussion at the
Institute’s annual meeting. We have been told that the study which led to this proposal was
undertaken last spring - why was it not mentioned at last year’s annual meeting in Las Vegas?
Why has the Institute Board prevented the Region Directors from discussing this process? This
is not a legal issue requiring discretion by the Board. This is an issue involving bylaws changes
to the very structure of CSI, and the general membership should have at least been informed of
the process that was going on.

In closing, we strongly encourage to you to consider the points that we have made and do your homework before casting your vote. Whether you agree or disagree with what your board has outlined, please vote!!!

Sincerely,

Fort Worth CSI Board
Renate’ L. Woods, PE, CSI
Ric Grimland, RA, CSI, CCS
Robert F. Smith, CSI, CCCA
Russell S. Long, CSI, CCPR
Tom Weiss, CSI
Gary Yancy, CSI, CDT
Jim Gilliland, AIA, CSI, CCCA
John Swink, PE, CSI
M. G. Movassaghi, PE, CSI
Brian Hays, CSI, CDT
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 282
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 02:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Suggestions When Voting:

1) Make sure which Bylaws Change you are voting on - there are TWO of them.
2) Print a Copy of the Review Page
3) Request Email Confirmation of Your Vote
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 283
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 06:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Brandi Fry's Letter to the Great Lakes Region:

January 29, 2007

Dear Great Lakes Region Member,

By now you all have received in the mail a letter from the Institute stating that a unanimous decision has been reached regarding proposed changes to the structure of the governing body of CSI. You also received a propaganda letter from Dennis Hall. When I was in elementary school, my school’s gifted program participated in the statewide competition, Propaganda. The main intent of the game was to recognize different forms of propaganda. The one that comes to mind for this situation is ‘Join the Bandwagon.’ The Institute Board of Directors is hoping that the membership will ‘join the bandwagon’ and vote yes on the proposed changes. Without any background, I can see how easy that would be to do.

I have been following the pages upon pages of discussion that has occurred in the forums on
CSInet.org and debated about writing this letter. I did not want this letter to seem argumentative or to be viewed as an attack against our Great Lakes Region directors, Bob Grabhorn and Lane
Beougher. It is not. This letter comes straight from the heart, as one CSI member who is passionate about the organization, unlike Mr. Hall’s letter, which was deceitfully printed on Institute letterhead. Mr. Hall is no longer a member of the Board, but he does not state that fact in his letter nor does he give any indication under what authority he is acting. It is also my understanding that Mr. Hall’s letter was sent without the knowledge or consent of the current CSI President, Edd Soenke. Just to be fair – Mr. Soenke did not know I was writing this letter either, nor did he sanction it. This letter
is strictly my personal opinion and not one of the Institute, the Akron-Canton Chapter Board or the
Great Lakes Region Board.

If you are a member who is not considered ‘a leader’ by the Institute (i.e., hold a Chapter or Region board or chair position) you did not have access to the discussions on CSInet.org. I think by not having access to these discussions most of the membership has conveniently been denied the whole story. I know that we all are very busy and do not have the time to read 70+ pages of discussion, but I would encourage you all to at least look at the discussions. I think you will begin to see how the rest of the CSI ‘leaders’ feel. The Akron-Canton Chapter has posted these forums in PDF format (current through 1/9/07) at: http://www.akroncantoncsi.org/institute_events.html. Feel free to contact me for a more current copy. Also, please take a minute to review the discussion at
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/405/2853.html as well as the many other discussions you may find useful.

Do not be deceived by the fact that all members of the Institute Board of Directors voted
unanimously on this decision. While I am impressed that twenty-nine people can come together on a
decision, I do not believe this Board of Directors has acted on the behalf of every member of CSI. I
can hear a small voice in the back of my mind saying “If it sounds too good to be true (the
unanimous vote), then it probably is.”

I do agree that there is a need for restructuring the Institute Board of Directors. There are two
motivators driving this decision, the lack of money and the concentration of power. The lack of
money is a huge issue. Name an organization where this is not an issue. I do agree that it takes an
incredible amount of money to conduct meetings of the Board. While the structure of twelve
directors would drastically reduce the cost to the board, in the ‘Board Meeting Reference,’ dated
November 2006 (can be found on the CSI website of governance change related documents), it
states, “Current directors travel budgets to be provided to the regions to support region travel and chapter support.” I ask – how does taking the existing budget and dispersing the same funds to the regions save the Institute money?

The concentration of power is another issue, and probably the most important. As the saying goes,
20% of the people do 80% of the work. In the current structure with twenty-nine members, that
means six people do most of the work of the Board. In the proposed plan with twelve members,
two people would be left to do all of the work. This doesn’t sound like a good plan to me. And lest we forget about the firing (oh, excuse me, I mean resignation) of our executive director in early 2006…while this issue is done and over with, keep in mind with fewer members on the Board,
controversies like this will occur more effortlessly with the proposed concentrated power.

The model of governance that has been presented by the Board is one of ‘either or,’ with the choices
being the business model OR the government model. The business model as proposed has a CEO, a
Board, and shareholders (members). With the proposed CSI governance model, the Board holds all
the shares, not the members. On the other hand, the government model is one where the controlling
faction can control policy and is appointed through a vote and has a system of checks and balances.

CSI has been, is still, and will always be a hybrid of these two models and to suggest that we the members have to choose one or the other is not a move that is beneficial for the organization as a whole - from the top, down to the members.
I could agree with restructuring the Board with only one of the two Region Directors in each region serving on the Institute Board and the other Director serving the needs of the Region, thus reducing the Board size by ten members to nineteen. The Region Director who is not on the Institute Board could hear the issues and opinions of the Region and relay those to the other Region Director who could then relay those to the Institute Board – I believe that is how the US government is supposed to work and if the representatives don’t listen to those who they represent, they can easily lose their
jobs. Keep in mind that with the proposed structure, the Great Lakes Region may not have any
representation on the Board at all.

Efficiency is also most definitely an issue. CSI, according to one of the published documents
regarding this change, has ‘been slow to respond to the continually changing and advancing processes in the construction industry…CSI must be able to bring ideas forward faster.’ How ironic it is then that the Board of Directors votes on this proposal and expects the general membership to approve it three months later. It took years, and many drafts, comments, and revisions, to publish MasterFormat 2004 and the Project Resource Manual - which have been implemented with few, if any, complaints. Maybe this is the Board’s way of realizing these recommendations from the start? Maybe CSI shouldn’t have taken the time to review and comment on MasterFormat 2004 and the Project Resource Manual?

By having a smaller Board, it does not mean that better or smarter decisions will be made with
regarding to the operations of CSI. I think now more than ever, CSI is in need of checks and
balances. Niccolo Machiavelli in his book, The Prince, first published in 1532, recommended
obtaining your goals by manipulating people and events. Some recent books on corporate
management also recommend the concept of "creating" (i.e. manipulating) a sense of urgency in order to affect change. I feel there are those who have taken a chapter from The Prince or books like it. By only allowing three short months to discuss and approve this governance change, they are forcing a sense of urgency upon the membership. They are trying to rush through a decision and get members to vote according to their emotions. They are trying to manipulate members into feeling that without a ‘yes’ vote CSI will immediately cease to exist.. I can guarantee that a ‘no’ vote will not dissolve CSI. It will, however, send a strong message to the Board that the membership is united and cannot be bullied, buffaloed, or BS’d into a bad decision.

While I could probably write an entire novel on how I feel related to this subject, I have tried to pick the major issues that I feel you each should be aware of. Please do not join the bandwagon without being informed. I encourage each of you to either be truly knowledgeable on the subject when you vote in February or to not vote at all. This decision is one that will change the way CSI is governed for years, even decades, to come. When I look at the number of past-presidents of the Institute who are against this proposal and see many problems with it, it says more to me than any document produced by the current Institute Board of Directors.

Do not vote “yes” because the Board of Directors or Mr. Hall or anyone else has asked you to do so.
Do not vote “no” because I, or any other members, plan to vote that way.

Vote according to the dictates of YOUR OWN head and heart. Consider the whole issue slowly,
carefully, thoughtfully, thoroughly, and critically. Do not make a hasty decision, and do not allow yourself to be stampeded.

However, if I am going to make my own statement of propaganda (and why not? – everyone else
gets to! But at least I am honest about it.), then vote “NO” to maintain a democratic CSI.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any of your concerns or questions about what I’ve said.
Please, most importantly, discuss this issue amongst yourselves as members of this great
organization.

Sincerely,

Brandilyn Bailey Fry, CSI, CDT
Past-president of the Akron-Canton Chapter and Great Lakes Region Awards Chair
Hasenstab Architects, Inc.
190 N. Union Street, Suite 400
Akron, OH 44304
330.434.4464
bfry@hainc.cc
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 806
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 08:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Will Dennis Hall be reimbursing the Institute for the unauthorized use of CSI letterhead and mailing charges?
Anonymous
 
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 09:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If he was no longer a member of the Board, how is it even possible that the letter could have been sent? I should think any sort of franking priveledges, including access to letterheads, etc... should have expired with his term?

I'm confused.
Harold S. Woolard
Senior Member
Username: harold_woolard

Post Number: 41
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hey confused, Dennis Hall spent thousands of his own money and was away from his office/ business firm about 150-200 days a year back when he headed up the Chairmanship for NasterFormat'04, committee. Dennis earned the right to be heard and I hope he does not back charge CSI for the money he was out during a 3 year period. Because I would be afraid it could pay for 50 mailing and postage. I read Dennis letter and most of the others, and I made up my mind and have since voted the I feel the direction of CSI should go in the future. The South Central Region has a President's Council meeting this weekend and I'm sure the two Institute Directors will go away with some new and improved ideas to pass on the board to achieve the same thing, but in a different way. I hope you address your Institute Directors and let them know you agree with downsizing, it just needs to be done where the Regions do not lose representation, and the number is odd, as to assure NO TIES!
Anonymous
 
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Harold, you completely misunderstood my comment. I could care less how this effects the election. I'm more concerned with the clear lack of prudent management practises being implemented.

In any company I have ever worked for, when the employee is no longer attached to the firm, their network priveledges are revoked, their security key fobs are turned in, and they become guests with escorts within the building should they return. And that's for employees who departed on good terms. It's just prudent practise.

So my comment is, how was Dennis able to expend CSI resources? How was he even able to access them? Are there no HR knowledgable people in the head office? I think this example demonstrates terrible lack of accountablity within this organization and how it is run.
Curt Norton, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: curtn

Post Number: 112
Registered: 06-2002
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Alright, I have to weigh in on this issue of Dennis Hall's letter. I didn't get a copy of it, but I did eventually read it on line. I do not agree with the dooms day tone, but Dennis is getting way to much greif about this letter. He is part of an Institute committee and was asked by the committee to write an article on the governance change. Eventually, it was changed to a letter and sent out by staff. No our President did not know about the letter right away, nor does he know about every action of every committee. Although I disagree with Dennis on this issue, I do respect his passion for CSI. (btw, I voted no ) I am sick of everyone bashing the man. Here is a quote from an Institute "leaders" forum:

I want to add some information about our communication process. The Governance Communications Task Team, of which I am a member, and the Board and Institute Staff, are all actively working to get as much information about the proposal out to the members as possible. These forums, conference calls, chapter presentations, and mailings are all part of the process.

A letter was mailed to the members last week on CSI letterhead from Dennis J. Hall, FCSI, FAIA, SCIP, entitled "CSI Governance Vote: The Bottom Line". The envelope stated in bold letters "CSI Governance Vote Information". In retrospect it would have been helpful to add under Dennis' name: Member of the Governance Communications Task Team. Because that's the capacity in which Dennis was asked to write.

It was felt that his words, coming from a well-known, respected member of CSI, would help convey the importance that the Board has attached to the effort to communicate to the members the many reasons that this governance proposal was approved unanimously in November.

Staff's job is to facilitate the communication efforts, which they did by getting this letter out to the entire membership, along with other communications that will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. These online forums at csinet.org are enabling many members to see, question, and comment upon the proposal. But because the intention is to be as transparent as possible about this proposal, and not all members use the online forums, the Task Team is using paper mailings as well.

Hopefully our efforts will present to the members the most complete picture possible of the benefits of voting YES on this proposal.

Sincerely,
Sheryl Dodd-Hansen, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, SCIP
Brian E. Trimble, CDT
Advanced Member
Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt

Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If I'm not mistaken, Dennis was acting on behalf of the Governance "get out the vote" Task Team or whatever it was called. The Exec Comm/Board approved the Task Team and let them do their work. Therefore, in a way it WAS approved by the Board. The communication was intended to educate the members. It may not have come off that way, but at least it got members talking. Dennis did not have "access" to the CSI offices. He did not have "access" to CSI's computer system. He didn't breach the security in any way. CSI has a GREAT staff. They are not going to allow anything to jeopardize the organization. No matter whether you like Dennis' motives or not he has done a lot for this organization.

Please, if you are a conspiracy theorist, stick with the JFK assasination. CSI is NOT a place for that.

Reread Harold's comments - talk to your Institute Directors about this issue. That is the only way for you to have an impact!
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 492
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Thank you to the all-too-few voices of reason. I am in favor of the communications that are imploring me to become knowledgeable and vote. With typically 25% of the membership voting in any given election (which translates into decisions being made by about 15 to 20%), urging members to get involved and vote can only do good things for CSI, making it truly member-driven.
Bob Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn

Post Number: 161
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Perhaps a compromise is possible: Reduce the size of the board for now, but create 16 new positions “Reserved for Future Expansion....”
Anonymous
 
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Thank you Sheryl Dodd-Hansen (aka: Curt Norton?), your response completely and satisfactorily answered the question about how the distribution of the letter was accomplished.
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 493
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 01:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Bob - thanks for the laugh; in the words of Isaac Asimov, "Jokes of the proper kind, properly told, can do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy, and literature than any number of dull arguments." - Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-92)
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 284
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 09:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Chapter Leaders: Please check your chapter webpages and see if an ad to 'Vote Yes on the Governance Issue' has been added without your permission. This has apparently happened in both Akron and Cincinnati. If a Chapter Board has taken an official position in favor of the Governance Issue, that would be fine but I know that's not the case in Akron and Cincinnati.
Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 11:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Interesting - the ads are posted on websites managed by Member Pipeline. If they are in fact posting these ads without the Chapters permission or knowledge, and contrary to the Chapter's position on this issue, then Chapters who use their services might want to consider switching to a private website vendor if they want control over their own website.

On a lighter note, check out these fun buttons in the Akron Chapter store: http://www.cafepress.com/akroncantoncsi#stickers,buttons&magnets

Something to go with your Convention attire.
Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 02:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It has been sometime since I have posted on this site and since I have personally been the target of much criticism here, I was recently asked to comment on the discussion. So here is my first and final posting on this matter.

Intentions:
I did not ask to be on the CSI Governance Communications Task Team, but was asked to serve because some felt that I had a pretty good record of communications with members. And I did not volunteer to write an article on my personal views of governance, but again was asked to do so and this later appeared as a letter to the membership. The views stated in the letter were mine and what I stated in the letter is what I believe to be true.

My intentions in participating on the task team and writing the article is only because I believe that we need to have a better governance model and the Board has spent a great deal of time determining that this is the right one. I don’t know that this is the right choice, but I believe that CSI needs direction and we need to get back to specifications and project delivery standards that made this organization great. If after many years of investigation all 29 Institute Directors and Officers have come to this conclusion, I know that they that their jobs seriously and have had the resources to make that determination.

Personal Flaw:
I have not been afraid to express my opinions nor am I afraid to listen to the opinions of others. Constructive intellectual discourse is a pleasure, but I draw the line at mean spirited name-calling. I am not afraid to change my mind when presented with compelling facts or argument nor am I afraid to admit when I am wrong. But, I am also not afraid to adamantly defend my position when I believe I am right. This flaw has gotten me in trouble before and will probably do so again.

Tone of Letter:
It was not my intent to express a “doom and gloom” tone but the fact is that since I became active at the Institute level on committees, task teams and the Board in 1991, CSI has lost about one-quarter of our membership. If this does not concern all members then I guess everything is rosy.

Governance Debate:
While some have expressed concern that this issue has not received enough public debate, I know that it has been discussed and debated for the last nine years and CSI has spent more than $100K in consultants during that time. Various sizes and representations for the Board, has been debated, all with their good and bad points.

Point:
It is time to move on! Vote the governance proposal up, vote it down, but get it over with. CSI is wasting valuable resources and not accomplishing the goals of the Institute. We have important technical and other issues that we have lost sight of during this marathon debate on governance.

Final Point:
It is time to move on for CSI and for me. What CSI does on this issue is really up to the members, but I know that it is time for me to be back to my goals. My work with SCIP and specifically with creating standards for specifications within BIM is what I want to do as my next challenge. The design/construction world has great challenges ahead and I have not lost the passion for improving the profession of architecture and the process for creating and sustaining the built environment.

Regardless of the vote, I will not give up on CSI. And while I may redirect some of my efforts, CSI has been great to me and I look forward to maintaining my membership for many years.

Conclusion:
Vote with your heart, vote with your head, but Vote. And once you have voted, rally behind the majority vote as what the membership believes to be the best direction for the future of the Institute.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 807
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 05:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I checked our Puget Sound website (www.psccsi.org) and sure enough the propaganda ad is there! This really infuriates me. I just wrote a letter to our Chapter President, Board, and Administrative Director demanding that this ad be removed IMMEDIATELY. I am also asking that our Treasurer find out how long the ad has been up and asking him to charge Institute for the ad space.

I sit on the Board of Directors as Past President and these ads were never mentioned or authorized. It's OUR website, not Institutes' website!

This is totally unethical and unprofessional on Institutes' part. We are not in a position to tell our members how to vote on this issue. They need to make up their own minds.

BTW, I would have the same complaint if the ad said "VOTE NO".
Brandilyn Bailey Fry, CSI, CDT
New member
Username: bfry

Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 09:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

David - I too was infuriated when I saw the ad on Akron-Canton's website yesterday. As newsletter/website editor I immediately wrote to MemberPipline telling them to remove the 'ad'. Ours too was not authorized.

In the past there have been ads on our websites from the Institute advertising the CSI Show or certification exam, etc. and I think those have been great! This one completely crossed the line.

In January when the governance issue first was discussed at an Akron-Canton board meeting (we meet in the beginning of the month), we, as a board, decided that the board would not take an official position as we didn't feel we should influence the vote. (I say 'we' because I am too the past president of the chapter and am on the board) We all agreed that we could act on a personal level, which you all know I have, in expressing our feelings. I have always made it clear though that my opinions are not that of the Akron-Canton Board.

I would have also had issue with the ad if it said 'vote no'. I think if any ad was to be posted on the Chapters' websites without their permission, then it should have just said 'vote' because we are voting on more than just the goverance issue, but we are also electing our next members of the BoD, or ExComm, or how ever you want to call our elected leaders.

I will be contacting our Great Lakes Region directors and asking them to take this up to the Institute level and get to the bottom of this. I really don't like the amount of unauthorized work that has been coming from the 'Institute' by the staff of the Institute. There doesn't seem to be much management in Alexandria. Perhaps our problems here at CSI are not an issue of goverance at the BoD/ExComm level, but a management issue at the staff level. Hopefully our new executive director can end these games once and for all.
Susan Fitzsimmons, Member Pipeline, Inc. (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 04:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hello Folks,
I'd like to clarify the situation here where Institute ads run on Member Pipeline's partner chapter sites. For over two years now the Institute has run ads on our partner's sites. As per my agreement with the chapters each has received 50% of the revenue. Over the last 2 years the ad has changed numerous times each instance promoting a CSI program or event. This ad was submitted last Thursday and added to the database. It is not surprising that in the 8 years of this program I've never been in the position to consider censuring a customer who meets every other requirement for advertising ("In no event will advertisements that are offensive, lewd, defamatory, disparaging of other products,containing false statements or in violation of any patent or copyright be accepted on this chapter(s) site."). I'm not sure that I can do it now for a number of obvious reasons that I'm sure you all understand.

However, in the best interest of the Organization what I have felt the need to do is contact the Institute and implore them to remove or modify the ad immediately. This issue of governance; both the proposed changes themselves and the communications surrounding the initiative have driven an already uncomfortable wedge in the membership just that much deeper. Sadly, this comes at a time when more than ever we need a cohesive and clear direction within CSI. I sit on the Board of Atlanta CSI and have for some time. I also participated as a member of the Institute Membership Committee. I am keenly aware of some of our struggles....and the last year and a half has been a doozie. I have been in contact with both the Akron and Puget Sound chapters who contacted me over the weekend. I have also placed a call to the Institute. I'm sure that by Monday morning we'll have a reasonable response to the situation.
I encourage those with questions or comments to contact me directly at 404.687.5188.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 809
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 05:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Thank you Susan. I know the we, the Puget Sound Chapter, (and I am sure the other chapters that you work with) really appreciate the opportunity to have an internet presence and a website that is managed by your tech savy firm. Our website is so much more informative that it ever was in the past thanks to you.

I will state again, that I don't have a problem with Institute publishing ads on our website. In fact I encourage it! That way I can direct our members, and future members, to our website and have a portal to get to national website.

What I object to is a one sided opinion being expressed on the website. Institutes' ad should say "Vote!" or "Don't forget to vote!" or "Have you voted yet? CSI needs your input on the Governance and other Bylaws issues!"

Taking a specific side would be the same as stating, "Vote for Gregory Sprinkle and please don't vote for Tom Deines for Vice President." (or the other way around.) The Institute just can not take a stand and push their agenda.

Let the members decide.....and please don't tell us how to vote.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 816
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 06:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The Institute has recently updated the ad on chapter websites to reflect a neutral stance! Hooray for them for listening to their members!

I have sent e-mails to Institute applauding their decision. (I figure if I am going to complain about them when they do something wrong, I need to compliment them when do something right.)
David J. Wyatt
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca

Post Number: 43
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 08:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Good thought, Mr. Axt. That kind of thinking moves things forward!
William Buchholz, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Intermediate Member
Username: bill_buchholz

Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 06:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

So where does this leave the issue? Let's not just call this inappropriate behavior by "The Institute". The Institute is not some monolithic entity - it's composed of staff members and our elected Board representatives.

Are we to assume that a staff member took the initiative in posting this "how-to-vote" ad on the websites of individual chapters without the knowledge or approval of those chapters and with no awareness or understanding that the ad was biased? If so, then which staff member?

I would prefer to think that a staff member was told to post it by a Board member. And since staff ultimately work for the members and the Board anyway, then which Board member takes responsibility for this?

This is the kind of irritating mischief that makes us individual members and chapters distrust our Institute. I'd like to get to the bottom of this. Would someone in-the-know please respond with an explanation of who precisely initiated this ad and is responsible for it?

For me, this is just another example for not trusting the restructuring proposal - individuals can have bad judgement or no awareness, and if they get into positions of power, their decisions can have negative consequences for everyone around them.
Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS
Member
Username: tim_werbstein

Post Number: 3
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 08:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hey everyone, I just received a postcard mailing from the United States Government, asking "Have you voted?" Then it encouraged me to vote "YES" on the Administration's controversial proposals! Isn't that unethical or something...regardless of how I vote?
OOPS! I'm sorry; that was a postcard from the CSI asking me to vote YES on the Board's proposals.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 290
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I just received two more glossy CSI 'Vote Yes' Postcards in a 'Myth vs Fact' format and am appalled.
Anonymous
 
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 08:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

STOP! CSI stop spending money sending out postcards. I received the same two postcards in yesterday's mail. This is in addition to not less than 5 e-mail messages in support, 3 first-class letters, and one other post card that arrived a few weeks ago. Enough!
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 512
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Protesting here does less good than contacting the Institute directly. Follow Mr. Axt's lead. This is like the email petitions that endlessly circulate. Write to the source, to the ones who can actually do something, don't just protest in the ether and void. Margaret Mead said, "If you do not believe that the world can be changed by small groups of passionate people, you are sadly mistaken. That is the only way it can be changed." So if you are not happy with the status quo, work for change; don't just protest.
Anonymous
 
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If one looks carefully, one will see that they were not two identical postcards. There were two separate messages. Which begs the question, why couldn't both been put on ONE oversized postcard?
Anonymous
 
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

When I joined CSI in 2003 my local chapter had over 90 listed at it's website member roster. The roster is no longer posted at their website but, in the latest mailer I got from the chapter, there were only 50 some names listed. That's a pretty fair drop-off in 3-4 years!

In hopes of finding new blood and energy, last year I even started attended Chapter meetings in an adjacent community. Unfortunately, this chapter is suffering a similar malaise and on one occasion even hinted of closing it's doors as a possible option.

Isn't it crystal clear...any change has to be better than status quo. Vote yes, yes, yes!!!
Edith Washington, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: edith

Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

"Chapter malaise" is typically cyclical. The best cure I've seen is having extremely good programs on current issues and publicizing them well throughout your local design and construction community. Such programs tend to draw new faces. I've seen meeting attendance quadruple in one year with good programs.

Continually recycling the same leaders and not moving outside the "known" group, also causes chapter malaise, as well as individual burn-out. It has long been proven that "active" members tend to remain members. This takes really personally reaching out to members.

Having traveled throughout the U.S. and visited many chapters, I know that there are strong chapters and weak chapters. I would encourage you to look at the list of chapters that received Outstanding Chapter Commendations from the Institute and actually contact a few of their leaders for suggestions and ideas. (See Honors and Awards section at csinet.org).

Sustained revitalization of a chapter comes from within the chapter; and has little to do with how many people sit around a table at Institute headquarters. Chapters can also take advantage of the leadership resources provided by Institute (See Chapters and Regions Section at csinet.org.)
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 826
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anon,

"any change has to be better than status quo"

That sounds a lot like an act of desperation. Making a change for change sake can lead us into even bigger mess. Carefully planned change is what we should strive for.

PS - How will the Institute Governance restructure revitalize your Chapter membership?
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 295
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 06:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Now that the elections are closed, the entire Election section of the CSI Forum (including threads on the governance issue) has disappeared.
Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI
Senior Member
Username: m2architek

Post Number: 104
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 07:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I would requst that Colin keep these and other threads available, as I am sure theese issues will be a topic of discussion in the future
Michael M. Davis
New member
Username: mmd1300

Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 08:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Helanie, the CSI Forum still contains the threads to the election discussions and governance. They are down the list.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 296
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 08:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Michael, it doesn't seem to be there and searching doesn't help.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 297
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 08:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The "All Leaders Discussion" is still up there but the "Election Discussion" that was open to all members of the Institute has been removed.
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 835
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 06:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I don't see anything on CSI's website about when the results of the election will be posted. Does anybody know?
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 298
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 10:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I don't know about when the results will be posted, but I hear that they will be known by tomorrow.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 299
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 10:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I'm pleased to say that the CSI Election 2007 Discussion has reappeared on the Institute's website.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 300
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 10:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The Election Results have been posted to the Institute's website at http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TRACKID=D4YPDFNS58ZE2YGBPEPS8ELNF73UVDLR&CID=30&DID=14139

In case this link does not work, it reads as follows:

Election Results

CSI Tellers Committee met on March 16, 2007 at the Institute headquarters in Alexandria, VA, to validate the election and ballot results. The Tellers Committee comprises CSI members from the DC Chapter:
• Joseph Berchenko, CSI, CCS, AIA, Tellers Committee Chairman
• Robert McPheeters CSI, CDT
• Howard R. Weiss, CSI, RCDD
• Donna A. Robb, CSI

Also present:
• CSI Legal Counsel - Jackie Henson, McKenna Long
• CSI Executive Director/CEO - Walter T. Marlowe, P.E. CSI, CAE

The Tellers Committee certified the following results:

Total Ballots Received: 4,042

THE WINNING CANDIDATES:

Office of President-elect: Gilman K. M. Hu, FCSI, AIA

Office of Secretary: John Patrick McCaffrey, FCSI, CCS, AIA, SCIP

Office of Vice President, Professional: David S. Proudfit, FCSI, CCS, AIA

Office of Vice President, Industry/Associate: Tom R. Deines, FCSI, CCCA

Institute Director – North Central Region: John M. Griffith, II, CSI

Institute Director – Northwest Region: Robert W. Simmons, CSI, CDT

Institute Director – Northeast Region: Scott Tobias, CSI, CDT, AHC

Institute Director – Gulf States Region: M. Keith West, CSI, CDT

Institute Director – Southeast Region: George Wade Bevier, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, AIA

Institute Director – West Region: Duane Michael Johnson, CSI, CDT


In addition to the candidates for office, the ballot included two recommended changes to the CSI Bylaws. For a Bylaw change to pass, the initiative requires a two-third majority.

Bylaw Change – Governance Restructure
Did Not Pass 60.4%

Bylaw Change – Honorary Member Name Change
Did Pass 77.9%

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration