4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Sell Products or Represent Members Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Institute Discussions » Sell Products or Represent Members « Previous Next »

Author Message
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 74
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 03:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

[posted by Colin Gilboy at Mike Little's request]

Sell Products or Represent Members
Rev. Thomas Michael "Mike" Little, AIA, CSI, CCS

That is what the CSI Governance Vote is really asking us.

The current Board got there by representing its membership at the Chapter and Region level. When they get to the Institute Board, they are taught to put Institute needs before member needs…to put the Institute need for money to pay for programs and staff…"to meet members needs". And it is no wonder that all of our "representatives" voted for it…straight down the line.

This governance change is a Business Model designed to make CSI more competitive on the "for-profit" corporate level and is not intended to represent the average CSI member. (But we've ignored many of our members needs for many years anyway.)

Looks to me like we are trying to hold on to the tax benefits of a non-profit and hanging on to membership dues as a great source of income, but needing to drop membership benefits by further eliminating programs that make no money.

Priority is being set for what the Institute sells and not for who it represents. They have to keep the membership to give credence to Institute products…not to mention a client base.

Sure, they want members. But that is not their main product (though it should be, that's why I joined). Lets look at who Dennis Hall proposes to be on this new Board: AIA's Ex-CEO, someone from GSA, Pres. of McGraw-Hill, and ARCOM's Chair…people who represent products, not members.

Dennis Halls letter (not dated, but received 10 Jan 07) outlines the need to fix: "loss of membership" (revenue), "decline in convention attendance" (revenue), "loss of revenues", "changes in project deliveries", and "internet".

Eugene Valentine's letter of 16 Jan 07 (received 29 Jan 07) clearly supports this view adding, "We consistently take too long to bring programs and products to the marketplace thereby missing opportunity." This is what I would expect to hear from someone who represents the needs of a Microsoft or Exxon, not someone who represents a non-profit membership driven organization (what I thought CSI was). He refers to me, a member, as a stake-holder…I don't own any stock and do not expect to make a profit...I expect CSI to help me, not see me as someone to sell a new product or program to. Valentine cinches it for me in his PS…I will vote against this view of CSI.

Are we moving toward being a trade organization whose members are only interested in selling their products like a Western Wood Council or EIFS Club? This vote could cause many to look at why they are members and revenues could fall further.

I am by no means against change, we need some change. But WE as members need to decide what CSI is, then change our leadership to represent what WE want.

This vote is to define CSI…Membership Organization or Product Producer.

Since you guys put so much into letters after your name, and Phil McDade felt it necessary to remind some of you who I am, let me give you newbees a little of my history. I judged Phil McDade's first spec entry. I was the 7th CCS in Alaska and watched while CDT, CCCA, CCPR were all birthed and sat on Certification Committee and Proctored the first CCS exams in Charlotte and Chattanooga. I Chaired Spec Competition over Dennis hall and Gary Betts, served on SpecText. Served as President of Chattanooga CSI for three terms and on the Institute Board from the Gulf States Region. I have been a member of the Northwest, Southeast, and Gulf States Regions.

I've been around the block and know what CSI once stood for. My Chapter doubled its membership during my administration and started the first Product Show in Chattanooga.

Talk about Roberts Rules of Order, I even knew Robert!

CSI Leadership has forgotten what we sold our members on, so many years ago. That is why our numbers and our revenue are down. Zig Ziglar told us to sell them what they want to be successful. Leadership has forgotten what CSI was supposed to be about.

Rev. Thomas Michael "Mike" Little, AIA, CSI, CCS
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 439
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 06:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Rev: Little: your reasoning is faulty in that if CSI didn't sell products, it would charge the same for membership fees as some of the other organizations. CSI for years has relied on its trade show for the bulk of its income, and that simply isn't happening anymore.
I am the current Chair of the Arcom committee, and I am the Professional Director from the Northwest. And Arcom is a perfect example of the lost opportunity that CSI has squandered in the past. 30 years ago, I asked why the pre-eminent specifications system was being marketed by the AIA and not CSI - - and it was just this year that Arcom entered into a working relationship with CSI.
here's another example: every office in the country buys AIA contract forms; but the comparable CSI forms either don't exist, or are outdated. CSI has successfully marketed notebook dividers using the division numbers.. but there are no dividers for the new numbering system.

My credentials are as good (and probably as long) as yours. I was the first woman specifier in the State of Washington; I took my CCS exam the first year it was offered; I taught the classes in our chapter in Seattle for over 20 years, and I was on the Certification committee for three years. I was in the first class of Masterformat Instructors, and now I'm still serving the institute by being Region director.

I am part of CSI leadership, and I haven't forgotten a darn thing. You know, your old mustang in 1966 was a pretty nice car, but it wouldn't pass crash test standards today. CSI needs evolution in the same way.

if you're going to be critical of "The Board" , I suggest you get yourself elected to the Board.

Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs

Post Number: 167
Registered: 06-2002
Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 08:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

with all due respect Anne, if the new governance plan passes I believe it will be next to impossible for Mike to get elected to the Board,, unless he's already well known and liked by the current Board.
Roy Crawford csi ccs ccca
Senior Member
Username: roy

Post Number: 9
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 01:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Doug:

You are absolutely correct. I know the people in my region as I am active in the region. I do not know members from other regions other than what is in a printed bio or election material. I want someone on the board that came up through my region and will be attuned to the members of my reqion. That is why I am voting no.

Roy Crawford, CSI CCS CCCA
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 256
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 01:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I am sorry to see that discussions of the Proposed Institute Governance Changes have devolved into something somewhere between a religious war and a pissing contest.
Harold S. Woolard
Senior Member
Username: harold_woolard

Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 05:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

This is not a pissing contest, it is about feeling represented by your Region. Amen to Roy, I'm voting NO and the current board had better start asking their members before they vote, and get started on a plan that can work. I've read all these complaints and I could come up with a working solution, that you would not have to pay for. Reduce the size of the board, eliminate EX-Comm, make sure at least one person is represented in your Region has a member on the board. You might have to team up with current Regions together. Cut back on VP's to make the final number an odd one so there is no way a tie vote can happen, Select members to "Police the board", and you might get this thing passed.
Anonymous
 
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 06:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

With all due respect Helaine, your wording is vulgar and should never appear on this forum. This wouldn't be happening if the board had given ample time for discussion and had presented a more through explanation to the membership. Instead of a thorough explanation, we receive "propaganda" letter from Dennis Hall, who is not on the board. How does a person not on the board, have access to CSI stationery and the full-membership mailing list? This smacks of a power grab by a small group of misdirected individuals. CSI should serve it's membership and frankly, I cannot see how this change in governance will benefit the members.
If this change passes, I will join others who return their CSI pin and membership.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 257
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 06:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

'Anonymous' may not be much of a loss, but please nobody else quit CSI over this nonsense!
Anonymous
 
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 11:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It will not just be members who quit CSI over this
(anything but)"nonsense" - it will be Chapter's who decide they don't need "the home office" anymore.
Do we want that??

I'm voting NO.....
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 484
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 09:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Will someone please explain why a "small group of misdirected individuals" would attempt a "power grab" of a failing organization? Because that's what CSI is: membership is falling drastically, there is bitter in-fighting and name-calling, suspicions are flying, leadership is distrusted and attacked. All these are signs of decay and collapse. Who would want it?
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 258
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

'Anonymous' should be aware that I am on record in more than one place as opposing the proposed Institute governance changes. My comments above are simply deploring the nasty tone so many people have found it necessary to employ.
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 486
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Here's a radical thought - EVERYONE abstain from voting on the proposal!
Anonymous
 
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 04:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I'm going to follow Lynn's recommendation and abstain from voting. Not because I don't have an opinion, but because I've recently discovered my CSI membership expired nearly a year ago.

I did not intend to let my membership lapse, and it's difficult to believe that I could have overlooked the renewal notice (and in past years there has been at least a second notice if the renewal wasn't taken care of promptly), but perhaps it happened. Not being a frequent attender of chapter activities due to distance, no reminder reached me through that channel either.

Now that this is the case, I find myself asking whether it's worth rejoining, or whether the Institute has lost its focus and is spending too much time, money, and effort on organizational matters like this and the Executive Director debacle and neglecting more important things (like Specifications, maybe).

With the comments on this and related threads about declining membership, it makes me wonder how many others are in a similar situation? Perhaps some of the letters sent to the entire membership in support of proposals like this should be replaced with letters to non-renewing members saying "we miss you and want you back."
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 487
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 05:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As a Region membership chair, I can write with certainty that we miss you and want you back. Lapsed memberships, due to whatever reasons, are (is?) something we are attempting to turn around. It would be nice to know where the breakdown in communication occured, but since we don't, how can I convince you to re-up, as it were?

(Hasn't anyone else read "A Modest Proposal"?)
Anonymous
 
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 06:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

CSI membership renewal is not the focus of this thread, but I had to add that, like anonymus, I didn't get my renewal notice. I was aware of my renewal date and waited for the never to arrive bill. I was not contacted by my chapter about the lapse in membership.

After a substantial period of time, I went on line to renew my membership. The chapter information was incorrect but there is no way to correct it on line. I contacted the Institute and, after several days, someone responded. When I asked about not receiving an invoice of any kind (electronic or paper), the staffer told me I must have my address listed incorrectly. Silly me, it was the same address that I've had for many years and at which I have received many CSI mailings.
Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass

Post Number: 28
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 10:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

ONE SPEC WRITER'S OPINION

CSI has spent money for consultants 3 times in the last few years as I understand it. After ignoring the first 2, (guess they didn't like those recommendations) leadership has pounced upon the third rushing to get membership blessing. As I understand it, among other suggestions, the following 3 suggestions were made;

1. CSI adopt an "entrepreneurial organization".
2. CSI evaluate institute performance once per year.
3. CSI evaluate employee performance once per year.

Now the way I see it, 2. & 3. are no brainers. Leadership that does not do this is NOT performing it's/their duties/obligations and the PEOPLE need to be changed, not the organizational method.

As for number 1, my dictionary defines "entrepreneur" as: "a person who organizes and manages a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of the profit." Now, if this is NOT what the consultant intended to say, they need to further define what they intended. If this is NOT what CSI leadership understood, they need to further define what they understood.

CSI is not a business but rather a professional organization. While money is necessary for existence, it should not be the primary goal. I say, CSI failure is not due to organization but because CSI leadership has abandoned intent to serve the membership to chase money.

What proof of this do I offer? Look at other similar organizations such as AIA. AIA provides services and standards for the benefit and betterment of it's members as well as the industry that are pertinent, timely, correct, and relatively simple to use. What has CSI done for it's membership and the industry? Consider this;

1. A construction specifications organization WITH NO SPECIFICATIONS!!! CSI had specifications but SOLD them (now known as SpecText and not even acknowledged or promoted by CSI as MAsterSpec is).
2. Spec Data Sheets, haven't heard that in a long time have you? Why? CSI leadership has stopped maintaining and promoting it. Why do you ask? Could it be that although it was/is beneficial to CSI membership and the industry, there is NO PROFIT in it???
3. Masterformat 2004. After a poor effort to obtain membership input but tons of input from those who have & will profit from it (Masterspec & Sweets profit in that ALL CUSTOMERS now need to make a new purchase) and adopted an industry standard so complicated and extensive that it requires training, interpretation, maintenance, and in many cases, collaboration to determine how to use it not to mention an ongoing expense (money) to CSI membership to keep up with it. Building codes are complicated but DO NOT locate the same info./requirement in several possible locations that vary and require interpretation to find like MF04 does.

It appears to me that CSI performance indicates that organization method has little, if anything to do with CSI problems. I will be voting NO.
Jonathan Miller FCSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As a CSI leader I have been following and participating in the discussions for some months now and have observed that the CSI Board... for some reason... voted to put this change right to vote by all members instead of doing the politically reasonable thing of having an official member-public discussion period.

This discussion period would have brought the members into the process, giving us buy in...especially when our insightful input has already pointed out a few major flaws that could have been corrected before the full vote. (For flaw and corrective details see postings by Robert Johnson, Edith Washington, Phil McDade and Dick Eustis... all past institute presidents.)

Now, I fear, real change will be delayed a year when this does not make the 66.7% of the votes cast needed to pass.... but the upside is a revised proposal with member buy in after summer & fall revisions to the proposal, that will garner overwhelming support.
Why? Because the board really does have to be downsized for CSI to survive.
However, I believe that it can be be organized in a more obvious member representative structure.

The Reverend Little has a point in that the proposed structure is very much a business model...a good bit of such in the mix is a good idea but... to have that as THE model for a member centric organization is not quite right.... especially when they start out doing the politically expedient thing and ignoring overall member input altogether.

In this case I strongly believe that our board representatives should at least have a summit meeting of chapter leaders to discuss the change at their next Region Conference Forum.

On membership items... with Lynn, I too am a Region Chair and sit on the Institute Membership Committee... it takes just one chapter volunteer to follow up on member renewals... and that should most likely be the Chapter Membership Chair.
Let Lynn or I know the chapter and we'll discretely encourage them to do so.
Ann Baker (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 04:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I have a question for all those who keep posting on here that the board didn't allow enough time for discussion of the proposed governance change. How much time would have been sufficent? I'm just curious - it seems to me that with lightspeed communications (email, public forums, and the like) three and a half months should be quite sufficient for discussion and debate on this very important issue. Three and a half months - this recommendation was publicized beginning the first part of December 2006 and ballots will be due back to Institute in mid-March (just wanted to cover the logic).

I also have a comment on the heartburn over the "entrepreneurial" stance that we are proposing for the board. First, even as an architect I know that "profit" is not a four-letter word (ok, we're a not-for-profit organization - work with me here). In order to serve our members in the best way we possibly can, while keeping dues from skyrocketing, we have to have revenue. So why are y'all condemning us for desiring to see CSI looking toward marketable products and services? Addidionally, in reading Mr. Glass' post that includes the statement "As for number 1, my dictionary defines "entrepreneur" as: "a person who organizes and manages a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of the profit", I also wonder if we have to limit "profit" to monitary profit instead of opening the definition to the profit of expanded services for our members and indeed for our industry? Selling products, representing members - they really aren't mutually exclusive.

Oh, and one more thing - if you truly believe what you say, why do so many of you post as "Anonymous"?
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 259
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 05:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I don't know why some of the cranks are posting anonymously.

I am disappointed that our Board did not do the groundwork to encourage membership buy-in before promoting such radical changes.
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 76
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 06:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Ann,

Discussion and debate is going on - but the discussion cannot modify the up or down vote due in 6 weeks or so.

While there were 3 months from when the Board voted to change the bylaws to the close of voting, there was NO time for members to discus and review of alternates before finalizing the bylaws change. It was presented as "we all voted yes" you should also vote yes document.

I believe the members are requesting an opportunity to discuss what is being proposed, have input into the final decision, and then have a 3 month ballot period. I think done this way next year, a smaller board and other changes will easily pass.

I personally am concerned that CSI is currently focused on becoming an umbrella organization in construction and has lost the perspective of a member organization and supporting members and their chapers - specifiers, design production staff, industry members and interested others.

In my view, the current Board proposal will further disconnect the Institute from the chapters and members.

Personally I would like to see a Board consisting of 10 region directors and 4-5 officers and maybe an outsider. There are several other changes I would like to see and I will present them when discussion restarts if the proposed change does not get the 2/3 positive vote.

Those interested in an entrepreneural perspective need to remember what happened to AIA and their investment in aecdirect.com. I believe it was a $4 million loss.
Jonathan Miller FCSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 12:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Hear Hear..... Colin
Your proposed board numbers sounds right to me too.
Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass

Post Number: 29
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 03:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I'm agree 100% with Mr. Gilboy.
Anonymous
 
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 04:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It's settled then -

Colin for President.

(Holy Write-in Candidate, Batman!)
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 443
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 04:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Colin:
just how do you propose to have "member input"? Poll 16,000 members individually? Greenway's recommendations came about after they DID poll about 200 members; all of the staff and all of the board members. They have also done this exercise for various other professional organizations -- its not like they suddenly changed over from redesigning pet food.

perhaps... more member input might have been desireable, but considering that less than 20% of our members even vote -- even on their region director elections -- how would you propose we determine just which members should be polled?

we keep hearing that CSI needs to be a "member organization" but I don't hear a definition of what that is, and furthermore, how it might be funded -- without selling products. Remember that the old "products" were almost entirely constructed by volunteer labor adn incurred little cost.

AIA, by the way, has a very successful trade show now that we would be wise to emulate.

Anne
Joanne Rodriguez, CSI, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joanne

Post Number: 45
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 05:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I just wanted to play the devil's advocate in asking: how do you grow your membership locally? Don't you "sell" the products and services that your Chapter has to offer? For local product shows don't you "sell" the program to professionals and representatives alike--each bringing their own source of money generating income? Don't you "sell" advertising to generate income offset to deliver quality newsletter and publications? Within your firms don't the intials that follow your names help the owners to "sell" you on any given project?

Profit is not a bad word. Firms increasingly lower their quality of system design in an effort to "sell" their buildings to the clients. How does this make everyone represented here better than the organization? Isn't there a thread specifically dedicated to the comparison of salaries? What if all firms decided that it wasn't worth paying the in-house salary, or outsourced consulting, for technical and specification writers? Isn't that the realtime challenge that CSI is faced with selling? It is not being a "me too" organization to AIA, we have never had the same level or glamour nor the same level of interest. Do we ask ourselves those questions? Could it be that even if we were handed a $100 we would be critical that the bill was wrinkled or that it didn't meet our specific "specifications"?

Even not for profit organizations need a little "profit" to run effectively and efficiently. We need to pay those employees in Alexandria who help CSI run. We need to have marketing funds and advertising dollars to elevate our exposure. Is it a true statement that we were not always run in the most "efficient" manner--like trying to beat AIA to the punch in our national meeting or developing partnerships to which CSI never reaped the benefits?

It is time to start to ask the question: how do we turn this train around. You do not deserve to be so wholly critical of CSI when we continue to lose members and credibility. We still have not capitalized on accredidations outside of CDT, nor have we captured the market in technical training--like MasterFormat. People are quick to draw reference to successful AIA, but can we not try to be a little more cut throat and saavy in our marketing in an effort to add much needed luster to this tarnished, and tired, organization?

Vote what you will, but keep in mind that if you always do what you've always done; you'll always get what you always had. Time passes and people change, this is not a bad thing--I like color tv.
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 77
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, February 05, 2007 - 07:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anne,

One way for the CSI Board to have quickly done some research is to have asked the 4specs Discussion Forum and to post why the changes were proposed rather than making it an up or down vote.

I suspect that the feedback in the past few weeks here would have substantially influenced the bylaws proposal. I also suspect that you could have avoided the cost of the consultants.

In my opinion a member organization looks to support their members and to support their chapters and regions. Last year I posted a question about the strategic plan - and I should perhaps have included a discussion on the current tactical plan to ensure that CSI was close to target and not working around the perimeter of the strategic plan and avoiding the specifier.
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/25/2497.html

During the past year I have seen no evidence that CSI is on a Plan S (Specifier) as compared to a Plan E (Everything for everyone) in an attempt to increase membership.

AIA has a good trade show as AIA sold the show (I believe because of the losses incurred in their aecdirect.com investment) and the new owners aggressively marketed their show against the CSI show.

While AIA gets the attendance numbers to the Convention (primarily to get continuing ed credits and not to attend the exhibit hall), I believe that CSI's lower attendance actually works on more projects and more dollar value than the AIA members that actually spend time on the exhibit floor.

To expand the CSI show CSI needs to attract more manufacturers to CSI and for them understand the importance in getting specified and the dollar value of the work represented at the show. Exhibiting at the show will follow.

There is still time to put together a short manufacturer program and to promote it for Baltimore.

Last week I spoke with one independent specifier who (as a 1 person specifier and some assistance) is doing over $8 billion in projects. Dave Stutzman's firm has 12 specifiers and is probably over $3 billion. Consider how many architects work on more than $10 million in project projects a year and compare that to the specifiers. One specifier talking with an exhibiter is probably worth 100 at the AIA show in terms of influence and project values.

At the CSI Show there needs to be sessions devoted to getting specified - move part of the Product Rep Academy there and make it FREE even to people with just an exhibit hall pass. This will get more people trained and interested in CSI and the specifiers.

I have offered several times to let CSI's mailing house use the 4specs mailing list of listed manufacturers, and will make that offer again here. I will also be willing to work to develop the program. CSI needs to provide the space - and that is not always available.
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard

Post Number: 111
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I have been an active member of CSI for nearly 30 years, as a member of five different chapters in three regions. I have been newsletter editor, board member, program chairman, secretary, VP and president. I have served on committees planning region conferences and national conventions, juried specifications competitions, and tallied national election ballots. I don't consider my extensive activities atypical for long-time CSI members. This is a volunteer organization and most members gladly help when they feel they are needed and appreciated.

But CSI has clearly shifted focus from when I joined back in the 70s. Things were much more grass-roots in the old days. Our "products" (spec guides and other technical documents) were produced by volunteers at the local level and shared (at little or no cost) with other members. Member participation, on a percentage basis, was much greater then, as there was a real sense of camaraderie and members were proud of their personal contributions to the work they produced for CSI.

Members are busier now and give their time less freely than in the past. It's not that members today aren't as committed to CSI, but there are too many demands vying for less and less available time. We now live in a world that can deliver instant results to our inquiries and that expectation of immediate response does not favor work by committees. Our way of doing things has to change to remain relevant.

What we need is a clear vision of what we should become, and a team (organizational structure) that is capable of making that vision a reality. Only when we are able to articulate the vision will we have a roadmap for the journey.
Rev. Thomas M. Little (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 10:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Why you have to vote and have an opinion on this issue.

"We should all be concerned about the future because we will have to spend the rest of our lives there." - Charles Kettering (1876-1958) American Engineer, Scientist and Inventor

"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right." - Ezra Taft Benson (1899-1994) Statesman

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.)

"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers." - William Penn (1644-1718) British Religious Leader and Founder of Pennsylvania

"When we put ourselves in the other person's place, we're less likely to want to put him in his place." - Farmer's Digest

Let us be gentle with one another as we determine the future of CSI...

Rev. Michael Little, AIA, CSI, CCS
Former Institute Director and 3 term President of Chattanooga Chapter
Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass

Post Number: 30
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Colin is on a roll here!
Keep it rolling by adding:
Right here on 4specs one can quickly see that the internet is problematic for members. Yet CSI has done nothing to assist members to locate products. 4specs saw a need and acted upon that need without having to be directed to do so.
What about guidelines for product websites. CSI, nothing again.
So, I ask you Anne, do we (the menbers) need to ask for these things? Is it that we have no right to expect leadership to evaluate member needs to detemine what to do?
No offens intended, just asking.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 444
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 01:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think asking leadership to evaluate member needs is a little disingenuous because our members are so varied. I've heard from spec writers who think that CSI has abandoned spec writers; I've heard from product people who think CSI sucks the money out of their wallets; I've heard from architects who think CSI is some stuffy boring thing that has no value to what they do. I've been to board meetings where having enough funds to provide member services is the critical issue.

My personal vision of CSI is bound to be different than your personal vision, and I don't think organizations are in the mind-reading business.

As in many organizations, we see CSI skewed one way or the other because a leader has a strong vision of what they think CSI can be, and other folks follow them along becuase the idea seems plausible at the time. in hind-sight, perhaps some of those ideas were laudable; and some laughable.

the organization as I see it has two real tasks:
1) grow and maintain membership
2) remain solvent.

how those tasks are accomplished is probably the seed of many many discussions for a very long time.

Anne
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods

Post Number: 165
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 02:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anne, I think you are missing a major goal:

1. Remain relevant to the Construction Industry.

I think that relevancy is slipping, and some of the posts above have honed in on that. I think that with relevancy, people will find value. With value, memberships and solvency are cured.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 445
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 03:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I think "remaining relevant" is too subjective, because what is important to my career issues may not jibe with anyone elses'. For example, I think the whole Green thing is totally irrelevant, but there are 20,000 LEED AP people who strongly disagree with me.
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco

Post Number: 81
Registered: 04-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 03:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

In due respect to this discussion forum (which I greatly appreciate) this is not the place to discuss these institute matters. This is more like a free-for-all. Why not discuss this at our chapter meetings; then at the region caucus; finally on the floor at the convention and put it to a vote. If we cannot vote on this at the convention then put it to a vote of confidence and then ballot. I don't remember the proper workings, because CSI has not had an issue before the members at the convention for some time. Remember the green and white cards? We need an orderly process that shows confidence in our membership to express themselves on controversial topics. We had some great debates on the floor at the convention and I, for one, miss them.
Jonathan Miller, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 06:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Ken.... this is the only open forum to discuss it in real time... although I agree with you on using the old democratic process of taking it to the members through each step of our organizational tier of member, chapter, region and institute.

Anne... I'm not a LEED-AP (yet) but I strongly disagree with you too on the 'green' matters. I do not like the idea of having materials with unbound hazardous chemicals or toxics in my home or office, nor some carcinogenic chemical off-gassing into the air around me either.
Also growing membership and remaining solvent are important but too business focused in themselves.

Nathan.... 'relevance' is not clear enough for this specifier... how about something like....
- Create, Maintain and Promote Construction Industry Standards
- Facilitate the Construction Process through Efficient Standardized Construction Documentation and Education

Rev. Little... here is another quote I came across....

"Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them." --Paul Valery

I believe we've been politiked on this matter of governance.
That is our main gripe Anne.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 447
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 08:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

So, "politiked" or not: how will your life change if this governance thing passes? we have a member in the northwest who was on the board about 10 years ago when nearly the identical recommendation was received by the board and it didn't come for a vote at that time. During our recent region teleconference, one very vocal nay-sayer finally said " well, probably the reason to vote for this is that it simply isn't going away".

This type of governance change has come before the membership before, and if it isn't passed this time, it will come before the membership again. The recommendations from various consultants over the past decade are very similar, and the next set of recommendations will probably be similar again, and presented to yet another board.

There are a number of people here who seem particularly tweaked that no one asked them, specifically. that simply can't be helped, and it probably won't change.

As for Colin's suggestion that the 4specs forum be used as a way to test the suggestions -- it simply isn't going to happen. The in-fighting that occured on this site with multiple anonymous postings really damaged the credibility of this web site as a legitimate forum. Its true that Colin started this discussion venue, but the CSI-specific postings more properly belong on the CSI forums, which are open to all members who are willing to post their name as well as their opinion.

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

Post Number: 263
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 08:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Excuse me, but 4specs.com is far more credible to most CSI members than the Institute's website itself.
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods

Post Number: 171
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 08:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anne, I belive the recent thread you are refering too was regarding the "Executive Director debacle". This thread only existed because because the CSI leadership did not employ the tools at their disposal to effectively communicate with their members.

I agree with Holly, it was not 4specs that lost crediblity. 4Specs did not make the news. 4Specs is not responsible for the news and views expressed in these forums, nor is 4Specs responsible for the actions or inactions of the CSI leadership. The fact that CSI leadership did nothing to address or respond to the massive and vocal outcry is where credibility was lost.

I don't know what your roll in that debacle was, nor do I care. I am uninterested in it. I'm not involved in any level of CSI leadership other than reading the magazine and this forum. In that limited capacity, I probably represent the majority of CSI members, and my perception is that CSI really fumbled that one. 4specs provided a valuable resource and purpose at that time, as it always does.
Harold S. Woolard
Senior Member
Username: harold_woolard

Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 09:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Most of this discussion is in favor of reducing the board, it is the wrong way to do it. Let your Institute Director know your feelings and send them back to the drawing board. Most members will in essence be abstaining from voting. Of the 14,000 some ballots, that go out maybe only 2,500 will return their vote. So less than 18% of the membership will determine this election if it holds true to the previous 3 elections. I bet of the 200 members that where "researched" less than 10 even vote on anything. Edith Washington, Robert Johnson, Eugene Valentine, Dennis Hall, are all leaders and each has a passion for CSI, all have great character, some are wrong about wanting this vote to pass. I've talked another 5 chapter members today to vote NO. CSI will be around long after I'm gone to a better place, I'm just not sure what Motto they will have then.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 451
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Since this group seems to be so fond of quotations, here is one from Edmund Burke, who served in Parliament 150 years ago:


"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable.

Your representative owes you, not his industry
only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 13, Document 7
The University of Chicago Press

The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. 6 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854--56.
Scott Michael Perez AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, LEED AP, NCARB
Junior Member
Username: sperez

Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anne and others,

Let me preface my comments with I am not trying to throw hand grenades or take a pot shot at your person(s). If I wanted to do something like that I would do so without divulging my name. I believe you are a professional and entitled to your opinions and beliefs, just as I am justified in providing you with mine. With this in mind, please read forward...

As I have stated (my opinion) here in 4specs as well as CSI forums, that change is good, and some change may be merited...and if change is merited, I am fully on board. However would you not agree that the completeness of a change be fully vetted before jumping feet first into something? Is there something we as members are missing...a great many of us are staring at this with mouths agape wondering what is going on? And why, when I ask the question of the imperativeness of movign forward now prior to detailing the issues, will nobody answer the question? To this day, not one person has come forward to tell us why it makes sense to have something voted on that we have not detailed. I can assure you that I would be amazed if I found a client willing to pay me a full fee for a building before it has been designed and deteailed...I certainly will not be a client so trusting as that.


I have taken the liberty to personally call (with my own money) several board members (President-Elect, Vice Presidents, Secretary, and a few others) to ask the questions why...and how this change is going to make things better as has been stated by those members, yourself, and other directors. The lack of answers and details still astounds me.

We have also discussed the letter sent by Dennis Hall on official letterhead and sent with CSI money (your money and mine, pure and simple). I was told that, "well, it should not have been sent and it was not authorized by the board." The average member will the comments made by Mr. Hall, the letterhead it has been printed on, and view the person who wrote it, and believe it is official. Have you seen anything that indicates the board took a stance to apologize for this? I have not. Why? Why not come out and admit it was an error, a goof, a simple "Hey, we screwed up and the membership should not take this as an official reply"? It really makes us begin to wonder.

Now I have found they are no longer calling it a "Governance Change". It is being indicated on the ballot as a "Bylaws Change" (and let's not mess with symantics, it has been identified as the Governance Change from the beginning). Why the sudden switch in terminology? Do the four C's suddenly not apply? It is muddying the waters for people, especially those who are swamped at work, busy with minimal time to devote, but the heart to at least cast their vote.

Some board members chose not to return my calls, some did. Since this was the case, I then used the forum to allow my voice to be heard...as I had no alternative. It became evident to me after the fourth call, that I continued to hear the same "party-line" as I was getting the exact same responses as if read on cue. It made me feel very uneasy that most appeared unable to think for themselves and tell me what "their" actual thoughts were. Had I taped the phone calls, they could have been overlayed with each other to say the exact same thing.

I would also suggest that a majority of people voted the current board in, but not necessarily all of us (I can guarantee you that I did not vote for many of the current members). As has been continually indicated, with the new change, you can vote for a national board. I can vote for national members now the way it is, and I have pointed out in a further statement on the forum the board most likely should be changed to fewer people, but allowing representation for all regions. How would the proposed bylaws change make this any different other than I can vote for fewer people? I also suggest that if you read the fine print, it says there "may" be two members that are not CSI members nominated to the board by the elected members. In my opinion, these two positions should either be members that are voted on by us (members), not appointed by a select few. The other option is that perhaps it should be two outside members (AIA, IFMA, etc.) that again are voted on by us as members. Yes, the board could provide a list of candidates, but ultimately we as members should have some say in this. Using the term "may" suggests somebody has alternative motive(s). I asked why it said "may" versus an "absolute"...I was told it allowed modification "down the road" (a point which I am not sure is all that well defined...but I digress), but if it is important to get someone from the outside of CSI to help with their wisdom, then why not fully commit? The details have not been ferreted out.

How would making a smaller board guarantee that? In fact I brought up that very issue to those members I spoke with. I asked how every region would be represented and feel that they had equal footing. Not one person provided me with an answer. I asked how the smaller regions would be justified and have equal representation? Again, I was informed those details had not been worked out. I asked if they were considering realigning the regions in order to balance them to create unity. They said that had not been discussed. I asked again, how are we supposed to vote on something that has not been determined? The base answer I received was, "it would be in the best interest of the institute", but again could not point as to why. To this day I am still confused how a major decision such as this comes to a vote with many details still undetermined.

I have spoken to many of the elected national board members. Each time I have asked how things are going to be accomplished, I am told they have not worked out the details. They do not know how things will operate, and yet they continue to ask for a vote. When I ask how a smaller board correlates to accomplishing all of the goals they have determined, I do not get answers. Not one board member has been able to answer the question. All I get is that a smaller board will make faster decisions. Faster does not always equal better...I have been on too many projects where someone wanted something done fast, and the consequences cost us all in the long run. We do not do that now.

Would you not agree that if this idea was that good, why does it have to be now? You know the board has has many, many months to ponder at its leisure, yet now we have been given a very brief period to ask questions, and see what it really means. I do not believe this is fair in any shape or form. I have promised to attend national and sit on whatever committee or group there needs to be to review the situation. But if we do this now, there will be no time for us to take that opportunity to accomplish a full detailing of the process.

The Indianapolis chapter is very active in national. We have a smaller membership, but have been around since 1961 with approximately 274 members. We have two honorary members, and four fellows including a past-president of the institute who believe this vote is ill-timed and unfounded. In addition you have a majority, if not all, of the past presidents of the institute who have indicated this vote is not in the best interests of the members.

I am a simple guy and I consider myself very detailed oriented (who in CSI would claim to be otherwise), but when I can come up with a list of questions in a very short period of time, that cannot be answered, it makes me wonder if the right group is actually in the correct positions to be making decisions without proper vetting.

Granted Edmund Burke was a proponent for the American colonies, however I would think even he would encourage those being represented (or not) to ask questions before complacently checking a box.

Vote NO against the bylaws change!

Scott Perez, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, LEED AP, NCARB
Past-President, Indianapolis Chapter

President
fulcrum STUDIOS, Inc.
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob

Post Number: 280
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

4specs has kindly provided a space to post "CON" letters at http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/25/2897.html?1172092322

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