4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

My Opinion on the Governance Changes Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Institute Discussions » My Opinion on the Governance Changes « Previous Next »

Author Message
Brandilyn Bailey Fry, CSI, CDT (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 04:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

This letter was distributed to all members of the Great Lakes Region on January 29, 2007. I am posting this here after being prompted by many members who feel that more than the GLR should be able to read this information:

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 at a 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
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 440
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 07:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Brandilyn-
Your translation of Il Principe is somewhat out of date, because Machiavelli's tactics were much more subtle than you suggested. He also was referring to sovereign states with standing armies, and unless our current president and Executive director have a militia somewhere, the comparison just isn't valid.

The past presidents had their own issues to deal with during their terms and one of the reasons why we don't elect an Institute president for an unlimited term is that conditions change. In the past year, CSI's membership has dropped 5%. the year before that also saw a 5% drop, and the year before that. Pretty soon, it won't matter much what past presidents say or do, because there simply won't be an organization to govern at all.

I have been a member for nearly 30 years and I am still astonished at how little knowledge of CSI there is even in the construction industry. In most of the offices I've worked, CSI has the public perception of being stodgy, ingrown and irrelevant. AIA has managed to turn itself around in the past decade and CSI can do the same thing, but not if we stay with the same course.

For most of the members, the change in governance will have very little direct effect -- no one is going to come to your house in the middle of the night and take away your credentials or your membership pin. For the organization, though, the change in governance can have a very beneficial effect.

I do urge people to ask their directors for more information. You mentioned the number of past presidents who are "against" this change -- but you forgot to mention that EVERY ONE of the current board of 29 voted FOR the change. The past presidents were not at the presentation by the management consultants -- the same management consultants that some of those past presidents hired, since Greenway had a two year consulting contract. As one of my colleagues from the northwest said "the dumbest thing you can do is hire an expert and then refuse to take their advice". let's not go down that road...

Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Northwest Institute director, professional
(also past president of the Puget Sound Chapter)
Scott Michael Perez AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, LEED AP, NCARB
New member
Username: sperez

Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 04:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

To All,

I am a past-president of the Indianapolis Chapter (2004-05). What I have seen to date saddens me. I never thought the politics would have hit CSI like they have and I really find it shameful. I was saddened when our previous Executive Director was secretly, quietly, and sickeningly dismissed without so much as a discussion...frankly, it smacked of manipulation and deceit, but we have left that discussion long ago (because nobody would address the meat of the issue when asked). I guess if we had a smaller group that controlled the board back then, then perhaps it would have been easier to shove that through the process without so much questioning. Then when we thought things had calmed down a new issue reared its ugly head….that of the change of governance.

I ask that you “Vote NO”.

Not because you are against change, but because you are against how this has been presented and forced upon us. I do not care how long "the board" deliberated and worked with a paid consultant, etc. They now put it in terms that we have only a few months to vote...I do not appreciate this being crammed down my throat, and that is exactly what is occurring…no matter how you view it, I have been given an extremely short period off time to make up my mind. Something this important needs to be discussed, and it can easily come to a vote with the next board, just as it can with this board, however with proper vetting that any major decision should undergo. In addition, if I have to hear one more time how 29 members of the current board vote yes, it will be one too many! They are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but these opinions are not similar to mine. Since we are not being provided the opportunity to question these issues prior to the vote in front of the board and membership, we have to use forums and phone calls to speak up to have half a chance to be heard.

The more one-sided information letters, and propaganda on this subject that I received from the board, just leads me to further reflect that this is a HORRIBLE proposition for CSI if we want CSI to be about bettering the profession through CSI and its MEMBERS. I do not think that CSI alone can change the profession; it has to be its members. However we are continued to be told that every one of the 29 members voted for the change so with the past presidents voting no and the current board voting yes… it would appear we have a stalemate. Perhaps we have to leave it up to the average member to make up their minds, BUT wait, as we have are continued to be informed this vote and decision “won’t effect them (the members)”, so why would members care if it really does not affect them?

Using scare tactics and one-sided viewpoints to address the situation makes one begin to realize that something is amiss.

Vote NO.

I am all for change, if change is merited...I think that in this case that some form of change is merited. Change can be good, especially when it is carefully thought out, planned, developed, and the details are understood by all that must live with it down the road. If this proposed plan that we are being asked to vote on really is the best thing, then why does it have to be done within the next month? Why can't we take the time to review and analyze this as individuals, and ask questions at the National meeting? Why are the details not clearly defined? I spoke with Eugene Valentine on the phone and I was informed that many of the details had not been finalized, nor had ideas been fully developed on how we would have voice (I was given thoughts about summits, and phone calls, etc., etc.). Frankly, I think it sad that we as professionals have a group in power that has not thought out our future path and then demanded of its members to accept it without question!

In addition, we now have had two letters sent out to membership (if the first was $6,000 then I am assuming we are now at $12,000). It was discussed by Dennis Hall in a forum on CSI that "they (the board) already spent $100,000 on a consultants"...I still do not see how that justifies spending the extra funds if we as a group are in such dire financial straits (Who did the financial analysis to determine that spending money on a consultant was a good idea in the first place)?? But if it made sense to spend the additional funds for these letters, then why is it not okay to have a special vote following the national meeting, when more things can be determined, a set of details can be implemented, and more is understood. Is the board afraid that this won’t get passed next year, or the year after…it makes me wonder if this is a personal agenda after all?

I would also suggest that blatantly doing whatever someone told you to do, whether or not they are an expert and were paid a fee, just because they said it was a good idea, is a foolish decision if you do it without asking questions first. Did you know all the NFL “experts” said the Indianapolis Colts would be “dumb” to take Peyton Manning over Ryan Leaf? Have you seen or heard of what Ryan Leaf is doing these days...(he coaches quarterbacks at West Texas A & M as a volunteer coach ...yes, for free)? In addition, I would challenge the board to review what the “experts” recommended, and what is now actually being proposed…it is my understanding it is different.

Vote NO.

I keep hearing in the letters and in my discussions with the national board members on the phone that there is a decline in membership. How does creating a smaller board correlate with increasing membership? CSI decline is due to a national decline in all organizations and what the board may or may not be doing, not the make up, if the leadership was there CSI could be as successful as ever… And I beg to differ on the point that it will have little to no effect on most members, this will change the course of CSI FOREVER, and it definitely impacts the average member as well as the active member. CSI is not specifically about credentials it is about bettering yourself and the profession through this organization, and stating that it is specifically about credentials and membership is exactly what why the board wants this change, that appears to be the type of members they want! The members become better through being a part of CSI NOT from being a member of CSI. When you are proposing a change that will be FOREVER, I suggest you take a little extra time to make sure you get it right (hre is a familiar analogy I am sure we can all related to….measure twice, cut once. It appears right now we are “eyeballing it” and asking the guy with three fingers to use the table saw).

Vote NO.

CSI has a great presence here. Could it be better...yes, without question. But that appears to me to be a marketing issue that should be handled by a marketing group that works for CSI, just like a marketing staff works for any type of firm. I am trying to see how a smaller board is going to make that better...the suggestion for a smaller board does not address the issue.

CSI also needs to start at a young age. I had never heard of the group it my university, as we did not have a student chapter. It is my opinion that if CSI wants to be more prevalent in the construction industry, perhaps our chapters need to work harder to show them what it means and how it can help? How is a smaller board going to help this situation? What is the plan? Have we figured that out...again this is in the details that may still be yet to be determined by a smaller board who can then do whatever they want, whenever they want, without challenge.

I would also suggest that using the AIA as an example would not be the greatest of comparisons…this is my opinion. I am aware that AIA is known around this area, and I can assure you it has no great affect in the construction industry. (We also had an AIA Student Chapter and we still talk about how it was great at getting members, but not really all that good after we left school and joined the workforce). Yes I am an AIA member...because I have to be. I continue to WANT to be a CSI Member.

Vote NO.

I have many types of organizations that I can be a member of and participate in, but there are only so many a small business such as mine can afford. If this vote gets passed, I can honestly say they won't have to send anyone in the middle of the night to come take my pin...I will gladly mail it back.

Vote NO.

Thank you for listening...now go vote!

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