gallagher@topaz.decus.org (04/29/91)
From the Editor's Pen - An Editorial
By Joe H. Gallagher, Ph. D.
Managing Editor, Wombat Examiner & 4GL Dispatch
Published in the April, 1991 Issue of the DECUS Newsletter
It is with a great deal of reticence that I write this editorial;
I would much prefer to spend my time on and fill this space with
technical material of interest to the membership of the 4GL SIG.
However, the Board of Directors of DECUS (at least 7 of 9) are
determined to force through a change in the DECUS bylaws over the
objections of others of DECUS leadership.
Because of the time delay in the publication cycle of the SIGs
newsletters, I write this editorial near the end of February to
ask you to consider a rejection of the proposed change in the
DECUS bylaws on which you may vote in April. Because the final
version of the proposed changes has not, at this time, been
approved, I can not make specific reference to particular
sections. However, I will point out issues or areas which you
must analyze to determine how the proposed changes solve problems
or make them worst.
The Board may yet come to its collective senses and acquiesce to
the wishes of the membership as expressed by the Petition of the
SIG Council to delay any changes in the bylaws and concentrate on
more urgent issues at hand.
o In the past, DECUS has been governed by consensus. The
process which the Board has used to try to force change has
certainly not be characterized by consensus of the whole
leadership. DECUS volunteers give their time and talents for
many different reasons. However, they willingly give because
they are treated with respect and feel a part of the
consensus process. If DECUS becomes a hierarchical, Theory X
managed organization, DECUS leadership will "un-volunteer";
there will be no one (except the Board itself) to provide the
information for DECUS services or organize the activities of
DECUS. If the proposed bylaws set up an organizational
structure in which the Board can dictate (without the
development of a consensus) to the rest of DECUS leadership
and volunteer providers, I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN
THE BYLAWS.
o Currently Board members are elected to two-year terms. The
election rules allow no real evaluation of a candidate's
position on issues, nor is there any real assurance that a
candidate is truly qualified for the responsibilities of the
Board. The process has been little more than a popularity or
name-recognition contest. As long as the leadership of the
Board shared responsibility for management with the
Management Council, the Board could not seriously damage the
activities of DECUS. However, if the proposed bylaws change
the term of Board office to three years, give the Board
control over the rest of leadership, and do not put in place
election reform so that members can make meaningful ballot
decisions, I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN THE BYLAWS.
o One of the important steps in the Board's process to change
the bylaws was the A. D. Little report. This report
recommends that the membership of DECUS be more carefully
defined and the electorate be educated and smaller than it is
now (restricted). Note carefully who will define the
membership and how it will be restricted. If the proposed
bylaws do not specify who the electorate will be in the
future, I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN THE BYLAWS
because you may dis-enfranchize yourself (you make find that
you are no longer a member of DECUS and you have no voting
rights in the future).
o In the version of proposed bylaws which I have seen, a Board
member may be removed from office by a vote of 11 of the 13
Board members. There is NO mechanism by which the membership
may recall a Board member. If the proposed bylaws do not
contain a membership initiated recall mechanism, I URGE YOU
TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN THE BYLAWS.
o It is likely that there will be a "concept" document which
states how this Board will actually manage the organization.
This "concept" document describes an entity called the Board
Group. Because the current or any future Board may reject
this "concept" and return to strict adherence to the bylaws,
unless the spirit and letter of the "concept" document are
included in the bylaws, I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN
THE BYLAWS.
o Having been a SIG Chair (I was Chair of SIG-18 from 1976 to
1979) in the "old" DECUS, I can remember how poorly DECUS ran
when the Board had direct control of operational units. The
present structure where the Management Council is directly
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the functional
units and the Board is supposed to set policy, goals, and
directions is better than either the structure of the "old"
DECUS or the new proposed changes. George Santayana said it
better than I could, "Those who do not remember the past are
condemned to relive it." If the proposed changes are
approved, the Board will become more involved in the day-to-
day operation of DECUS. They will give in to the temptation
to micro-manage activities as they have already done. Because
individuals and the group only have so much time and energy,
they will do less planning and establish fewer goals. This
will create a vacuum. Into this vacuum will step Digital
Equipment Corporation who will begin to set the long term
goals of DECUS. While I want Digital to share with us their
vision of the future, I do not want them controlling the
agenda of this user's society. Because I fear that the
proposed changes in the bylaws will lead us down this
slippery path, one which we already tried and recognized as
failing, I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE CHANGES IN THE BYLAWS.
The A. D. Little and Whidden Task Force reports see the current
structure as flawed. I do not. What I see is individuals who do
not have the leadership skills to make the current system work.
They have tried to impress their will on those around them rather
than lead by espousing a vision of where DECUS should go and what
it should be, molding their ideas and ideals from the council of
others, and then persuading the DECUS leadership and membership
to embrace their vision and work for the common good of the
Society. Changing the bylaws to concentrate more control into the
hands of a more powerful Board and even more powerful Board
officers is not the appropriate direction for a volunteer user
society.
Those who support the changes in the bylaws will argue that the
proposed changes will not affect the operation of DECUS or the
delivery of DECUS services. This is not true; they have already
been affected. It may not be that apparent at this time, but
large amounts of time have already been (and will continue to be)
spent opposing these changes by DECUS middle management. This
time would have been better spent creating DECUS services. I urge
you to reject the proposed changes in the bylaws. Send a clear
message to the Board that you want them to return to their duties
of leading the Society and stop squabbling with the Management
Council and the rest of DECUS leadership.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I am not directly on the InterNet. If you wish to respond you
may reach me at
GALLAGHER@DCSA1.DECUS.ORG