A New Beginning

Last fall, CSI members were given the opportunity to vote on a set of bylaws changes that would have had significant impact on the makeup of CSI's Board of Directors and the Institute nominating process. Even though most members appeared to favor - or at least not oppose - most of the changes, some expressed strong opposition to a couple of the proposed changes, and, in a close vote, the recommendation was defeated.

In response to member concerns, a new governance recommendation is being developed, with the opportunity for all members to participate in the process. Invitations to participate were sent to CSI chapter, region, and Institute leaders - about 1,400 in all - asking them to share information with chapter members; notices were included in the CSI Weekly (received by more than 10,000 members) and CSI NewsBrief, and appeared on CSINet; a governance forum was added to the CSI Forums in May; and the Governance Task Team hosted four teleconferences in September.

Let's look at the new proposals to see how they address member input, and how implementation will affect CSI operations.

The most obvious change is the size of the Board. Last year's recommendation would have reduced the Board to twelve members by eliminating the direct link between regions and Institute Directors. The current proposal restores the link to regions, but cuts the number of Institute Directors to one per region. Other changes in Board membership include the addition of two Institute Directors at large (voted on by the entire membership rather than by a single region), and having a single Vice President.

An important but less obvious change is the elimination of the Executive Committee. Under the current structure, the Executive Committee meets several times each year to conduct the business of the Institute, while the entire Board of Directors meets only a few times. For meetings of the full Board, the Executive Committee meets a day earlier than the Board to prepare information for discussion and approval by the Board. Because the Executive Committee meets more often and has earlier access to more information, it sometimes appears as if the Directors' main function is to rubber-stamp decisions of the Executive Committee, and it is easy for an "us versus them" feeling to arise. The new structure, by eliminating the Executive Committee, will ensure the entire Board has equal access to information.

Representation of member classifications was another issue that some members felt was missing from last year's recommendation. The current proposal will require a minimum number of representatives from professional and from industry/associate classifications, and limit the number of consecutive terms that an office can be filled by a single member classification.

Even more important to many members than regional representation, was the last recommendation's change to the Institute nominating committee. Under that recommendation, the nominating committee would have had five members, at least three of whom would have been Board members. That makeup would have made it possible for the Board to fill offices with chosen people, without regard to the wishes of t he membership or the need for differing viewpoints. As onerous as that may appear, a fair comparison indicates the current nominating committee structure is no better, as it allows members who may know little about current initiatives or Board plans to choose candidates without regard to ongoing Board activities.

The new proposal combines the best of both options. It keeps the current rotation of five members from among the regions, and adds two voting Board members. This prevents the Board from excluding people solely because they don't agree with the sitting Board, at the same time giving the Board an opportunity to help the nominating committee understand what the Board is doing and what it plans for the future. It is important to include people with different opinions, but it is also important to keep things moving.

Changes in the nominating process are also being considered. The only ways to get on the ballot are to be approved by the nominating committee, or to obtain a minimum number of signatures on a petition. In itself, that isn't unusual, but the latter approach requires submittal of the petition before the nominating committee's choices are known, making it impossible to react to the official ballot. A write-in campaign is possible, but they rarely succeed.

Finally, there will be a proposal that would allow all members in good standing to vote at the annual meeting. This would eliminate the need to send lists of attendees to Institute staff months in advance, a practice that frequently prevented members from voting because they could not know if they would attend until weeks or days before the meeting.

As of this writing, the new proposal will be divided into three or more parts, each of which will stand on its own. At the moment, it looks like they will be: reduction in size and change of officers; new nominating committee structure; changes in nominating procedures; and changes to voting procedures at the annual meeting.

The open part of the process is nearing completion, so if you have anything to say, now is the time. The final draft must be submitted for Board approval in November to allow time for formal notification of the membership, so comments must be received by 20 October.

Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA
Institute Director, North Central Region, CSI