All ASQ members should be shortly receiving a proxy vote, either by snail mail or email. It's hard to understand the gist of the changes just by reading them. My regional director is very down on what's been proposed, so I thought I would share his comments here and see what others have heard.

"You will shortly see a note come to the membership to vote for a Bylaws change. This change is very controversial and will affect sections greatly.

The most significant change is a board reductions change, which on the surface sounds good. It is not!!!! The reduction in board size came mostly from your representation at the board level. It reduced greatly the ability of the sections to have their voice heard at the board level.

I strongly suggest that you reject this Bylaws change and advertise it in your newsletters with a recommendation not to approve this.

I am sending this note out with very little time to put it together for this whole process has been in the dark with only confidential documents sent to board members. I was not able to discuss this with you before due to the confidential manner in which this change has happened. Even today I cannot review the actual documents of the proposed Bylaws.

As your Regional Director I am doing my best to represent the local sections needs. I was unable to stop these Bylaws from going forward. Only you can stop this by asking your members to vote it down."

He also included the following information on the changes:

"1. The Board of Directors has been talking about the issues of governance of the Society for over a year which began a study group, then a draft bylaws was presented to the BOD in Nov 2004. The draft was prepared by Liz Keim, past Chair of ASQ. This initial draft, which was not to be distributed to anyone other than Board members due to a "CONFIDENTIAL Do Not Distribute Further" marking [ and other limitations within Adobe ] , would have resulted in a BOD and By-Laws which [ in my opinion ] would have essentially eliminated any meaningful ability to influence the BOD and the Society's actions or future direction by Section members and especially, Section volunteer leaders.

2. As your elected representative, I was immediately upset at what was presented. I wanted to discuss it with you, but was 'blocked' by the restrictions imposed on the document.

3. Speaking with other members of the BOD I learned that there were varying levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with what was proposed.

4. Through many phone calls I determined that many directors (RD's) were prepared to fight for Section rights! This we did, with many Monday afternoon conference calls [about 12 or so!] and a lot of one on one calls in between.

5. We had a very long and often very contentious BoD meeting earlier this month. We started at 7:30 and went until 8:30 on Friday and started early on Saturday and finally had a favorable vote that protected sections but in my opinion not enough. I did not vote for this!!!!

6. The BOD meeting was very revealing and enlightening. There were enough votes mustered to avoid total loss of Section representation on the Board, but we did have to compromise to develop a "don't loose it all" which has significantly reduced the representation of the Sections [as represented by the Regional Directors].

The present BOD is comprised of 32 members:
Office of the President (OOP) 6 COB; Pres; Pres. Elect; VP; VP; Treas. Nominated by ASQ Nominating Committee National Directors (ND) 5 National Directors Selected by ASQ Nominating Committee

Division / Forum Directors (DAC) 6 Division / Forum Directors Elected by ASQ Divisions

Regional Directors (SAC) 15 Regional Directors (47% of the BOD) Elected by Sections in each ASQ Region

32 Total BOD members
DAC = Division Affairs Council SAC = Section Affairs Council

After exhaustive discussion and negotiation the BOD voted for the following Board makeup, actually the Board just got tired out....this includes myself:
Office of the President (OOP) 4 COB; Pres; Pres. Elect; Treas. Nominated by ASQ Nominating Committee

National Directors (ND) 4 National Directors Selected by ASQ Nominating Committee

Division / Forum Directors (DAC) 4 - 6 Div./Forum Directors Elected by ASQ Technical Communities Council
Regional Directors (SAC) 4 - 6 Regional Directors (25 - 30% of BOD) Elected by ASQ Geographic Communities Council

16 - 20 Total BOD members
Another way of looking at the above information:
Office of the President (OOP) 4 loss of 2; 33% decrease Nominated by ASQ Nominating Committee
National Directors (ND) 4 loss of 1; 20% decrease Selected by ASQ Nominating Committee
Division / Forum Directors (DAC) 4 - 6 loss of 0 - 2; 0 - 33% decrease Elected by ASQ Technical Communities Council

Regional Directors (SAC) 4 - 6 loss of 9 - 11;
60 - 73% decrease
Elected by Geographic Communities Council
16 - 20 Total BOD members
Please not the sections got a 60% decrease in ability to represent your interests!!!!!

BOTTOM LINE: This new BoD composition cannot be implemented Board of Directors alone. As stated above a ballot will be sent to each ASQ Regular Member in good standing for vote. When this ballot is distributed it may include a statement such as: " the BoD has voted to change the ASQ National Bylaws to allow ASQ to react in a rapid and more proactive way to advance the cause of Quality in a Global environment". Be advised that there is no objective evidence to indicate that the existing BoD size has precluded ASQ from being rapid or proactive."

Based on what my RD has said, I'm wondering if ASQ Headquarters considers its membership to be relevant anymore.

This initial draft, which was not to be distributed to anyone other than Board members due to a "CONFIDENTIAL Do Not Distribute Further" marking [ and other limitations within Adobe ] , would have resulted in a BOD and By-Laws which [ in my opinion ] would have essentially eliminated any meaningful ability to influence the BOD and the Society's actions or future direction by Section members and especially, Section volunteer leaders.Ah! A secret society!

I've sent an email note off to my Regional Director (I am the Chair of a Section) asking their opinion. Unfortunately I doubt I will get any response. At least your Regional Director initiates some dialogue! My RD has not initiated any communications and is hard as heck to get a hold of or get any acknowledgement of incoming questions, and has not provided any new information at all.

{late entry} I did receive an opinion from my regional director on Monday (March 21).

So in my opinion (and having read the proposed changes) maybe less RD's is better! Certainly can't make things any worse. I don't think the formal communications process is working very well within ASQ. I will give credit though that I have had some very good communications with various ASQ leaders, but not through the channels you might expect.

Steve Prevette
Section 614 chair

Of course, the disconnect between "leaders" and "members" of ASQ is primarily engendered by highly paid staff of ASQ who are trying to cement their positions without pesky distractions by picayune members.

The tactic of "burning out dissenters" by stretching meetings on ad infinitum is used everywhere, in non-profits, for-profits, and politics by bureaucrats to tie up dissenters and reformers and allow them (the paid staff) to continue unfettered in their profligate ways.

In the case of ASQ, those folks who aspire to the higher elected offices in ASQ often have agendas which are inimical to those of the rank and file members. Often, the regional directors are the only "pure" volunteers, but they are distracted by large geographic territories and the press of maintaining their own livelihood. It is easy to see how they can have one eye on the clock, wondering if they can make their plane or get to their next meeting, instead of both eyes and mind on the task of the ASQ meeting, especially when others are obfuscating the issues.

Certainly, the idea of SECRECY, opposed to free and open dialogue and especially input and comment from rank and file members, is especially rankling to folks who want ASQ to be the professional society which helps confer honor and status on its members, rather than branding them with a big red "SUCKER!" across their foreheads.

On numerous occasions, I have said, "Vote the rascals out!" When the new regime comes in, the first thing they should do is FIRE every single one of the staffers making over $100,000 and start fresh. Being leaderless in paid staff for a couple of months while we search for new staffers can't be any more detrimental to ASQ than letting them stay. In fact, it may be so beneficial, we could decide to do without highly paid staff.

What I detest most about the ballot process is that we are precluded from the discussion which frames the issues.

Ah! A secret society!

Maybe....but your still not considered an official member until you've learned the handshake, received the "decoder ring" and most importantly....pay your annual dues.

Wayne

Maybe....but your still not considered an official member until you've learned the handshake, received the "decoder ring" and most importantly....pay your annual dues.Well, the 'pay your dues' part, anyway... :rolleyes:

LOL, that reminds me - I got a late renewal notice today... I'd better pay so I can learn the secret handshake. What level do I have to pay to get the keys to the executive washroom?

LOL, that reminds me - I got a late renewal notice today... I'd better pay so I can learn the secret handshake. What level do I have to pay to get the keys to the executive washroom?
I paid my dues on time and they still make me use the sandbox near the back door.

Seriously
I voted no on the proxy ballot. I don't see any benefit to ASQ members from the proposed change, only a consolidation of power in the hands of paid staff.

Since I am a section chair, I received the following email today:

This message is sent on behalf of Clay Hodges, ASQ SAC Chair . . .



Dear Section Leader or Member:

As part of the communication effort, we are continuing to provide information about changes to the ASQ bylaws. This effort is to help members understand the changes and to provide an opportunity to seek additional information, if needed.

The Board of Directors addressed this issue to support the Living Strategy, the Living Community Model and to improve the governance practices. This would include a regular review to make sure the bylaws continue to meet the legal requirements and the bylaws continue to meet the needs of the organization.

The Board of Directors also reduced the size of the Board to reduce costs and to improve the efficiency of the Board. This includes adaptation of the operations to encompass changes in technology and to align with a reorganized ASQ.

The new bylaws better supports the new member model and the proposed bylaw changes will help ASQ have governance that reduces bureaucracy and reduces support costs. The Board of Directors voted to change the ASQ bylaws to move to a structure where the organization can be flexible while valuing tradition.

Simplifying the bylaws, by moving issues, such as committee composition and nomination procedures, to policies and procedures, will help the organization be more responsive to member needs since policy issues are more rapidly changed than the actual bylaws.

The bylaws changes allow for a governance structure that is responsive to traditional memberships, aligns with the intent of the stakeholders, and supports a new member model that is responsive to the desires of new, and potential, members.

As the business environment changes, the simplified bylaws will allow more flexibility In addition, the simplified bylaws allow the Board to seek new methods to add value and focus to the core purpose of ASQ through increased committee participation and through the use of ad hoc groups for short-term projects.

Changes to the bylaws will help ASQ identify future markets, and allow ASQ'S participation in the development of nonmember markets in order to increase membership and deliver member value.

If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact ASQ Community Care.

Thank you,
Clay Hodges
ASQ SAC Chair

***************************************************************************************************




Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:00 PM
To: Members of the International Chapter
Subject: International Chapter & ASQ Bylaw Changes



Dear International Friends in Quality:



You recently received a letter from the ASQ International Chapter Chair that created a great deal of comment and concern. Unfortunately, there were some statements in the letter that were simply wrong; others were unclear and perhaps misleading, based on lack of, or misinterpretation of, information.



Liz Keim, 2002-2003 President of the ASQ and chief architect of the Bylaws change and Ken Case, 2003-2004 President of the ASQ and currently Chairman of the Board are jointly writing this letter to express our concern for your feelings and to correct or clarify some of what you have heard. Our bottom line is that you should absolutely vote YES to the Bylaw changes since they are much-needed revisions, create more flexibility for the ASQ, and are very much in line with our desire to serve all ASQ members and quality practitioners to the fullest extent, regardless of their geographic location.



Before we begin, please keep something very important in mind. The ASQ Board of Directors that approved the Bylaws changes by a minimum required three-quarters majority is made up of 32 persons who are devoted to quality, have a deep commitment to the ASQ, and are very appreciative of the important and growing role of everything international in ASQ, including such things as our International Chapter, our Global Cooperation Committee, our World Partners, our International Member Units (IMU’s), our cooperative ventures with non-North America countries, and the wonderful contributions made by many of you to the advancement of the quality movement. So, ask yourself, “does it make ANY sense that the ASQ or its Board of Directors would make an attempt to diminish the role of the international community in any way?” The answer is a resounding NO! Quite the contrary!



Why did the ASQ International Chapter Chair write something that would create such controversy, distrust, and dismay within the international community? Why would he send out a letter that would create such a negative perception of the ASQ Board and, therefore, the ASQ? We believe that a major part of the answer is that he feels so strongly about the importance of the international community that he wanted an explicit Board seat to be designated for the International Chapter. In early versions of the proposed Bylaws, an International Chapter seat was proposed. During deliberations, however, it was decided by the Board that no Board seats would be designated and “owned” by any specific chapter, division, forum, IMU, or other single entity. Rather, an international seat would most appropriately fit within the set of 4 to 6 “Geographic Community” seats. The same holds true for the 4 to 6 “Technical Community” Board seats. In addition to these 8 to 12 Board seats, 4 will be held by at-large members and 4 will be held by the Chairman, President, President-Elect, and Treasurer. There is absolutely no restriction on international members holding any of these seats, and we are hopeful that the Geographic Community will specify that one of the 4 to 6 seats will be filled by someone representing the international community.



Now permit us to comment upon some specific items that may be of concern to you.



1. The ASQ International Chapter Chair wrote: “You have received an e-mail message that came to the membership to vote for a Bylaws change. This change is very controversial and will affect international members greatly.” Response: The vote is not controversial when over 75% of the entire Board votes for it (and actually, 2-3 Board members were unable to be with us at the meeting to vote, so their votes could not be counted for the changes, and so were counted against the changes). The revised Bylaws are helpful to all members of the ASQ regardless of geography. The Board felt very relieved, upbeat, and pleased following the final vote.



2. The ASQ International Chapter Chair wrote: “The most significant change is a board reduction change, which on the surface sounds good. Many Directors of geographical units feel it is NOT!!!! The reduction in board size came mostly from geographical representation at the board level. It reduced greatly the ability of the Geographic member units to have their voice heard at the board level.” Response: Every Director, including all of those from the geographic units, had many opportunities to have their voice heard during several months of work on the Bylaws, beginning with a Charter approved by the Board and including many telephonic Board meetings. Benchmarking data was discussed, as were responses that had been sought from many randomly selected members, all member leaders, and all Fellows. In addition, the Board took several “straw votes” to guide where we were in agreement and where we needed more data or discussion. The reduced Board size (from 32 to 16-20) is not only in keeping with good practice, but also will likely enhance the input from the Geographic Community. Finally, every member of the Board will be affiliated with a Geographic Community. There was also a change that each Board member is required to represent all of the members, not just their constituency.



3. The ASQ International Chapter Chair wrote: “I am sending this note out with very little time to put it together for this whole process has been in the dark with only confidential documents sent to board members. I was not able to discuss this with you before due to the confidential manner in which this change has happened. Even today I cannot review the actual documents of the proposed Bylaws.” Response: The Bylaw process was never in the dark. What we did keep confidential was the numerous DRAFTS of proposed Bylaws that were considered by the Board. To ensure that the changes were not done “in the dark,” much input was sought, summarized, distributed to the Board, and discussed at length.



4. The ASQ International Chapter Chair wrote: “As your International Chapter Chair, I am doing my best to represent your interests. At this time, I am unable to stop these By-Laws from going forward because the International Chapter does not have a representative on the Board, although I have been asking the office of the president and the SAC to support this for the last two years. I strongly believe that the International Chapter which has grown significantly in size, membership and global influence in the last fifty years should have a representative on the ASQ Board. It cannot remain hidden away under some other part of the society as it has been since the society was founded in 1946 (almost 60 years ago). The time for the International Chapter to be fairly represented on the ASQ Board is NOW!!! Only you can make this happen by asking your members to vote it down.” Response: The International Chapter and the international community in general are strong, getting stronger, and are a valuable part of the ASQ. If the revised Bylaws do not pass, we believe this will result in a significant setback for all ASQ members, everywhere.



In summary, let us make three points. First, we are absolutely certain that the ASQ Board as a whole joins each of us in having a great appreciation and commitment to the international community. Second, we urge you to vote YES on the Bylaw changes since they will enable many opportunities to better serve all ASQ members and quality practitioners, everywhere. Third, we do solicit your input and encouragement for the Geographic Community to adopt a policy that will explicitly allocate one of its 4 to 6 Board seats to someone specifically knowledgeable and able to articulate the best interests of the international community outside North America. Any such comments and encouragement can be sent to Julie Sharp at jsharp@asq.org



We both look forward to seeing many of you in Seattle and later at quality events in your home countries and continents.



Yours in Quality,











Elizabeth (Liz) Keim

ASQ President 2002-2003

Chair of the Board 2003-2004


Ken Case

ASQ President 2003-2004

Chair of the Board 2004-2005

====================================

I replied with the following:

You said - If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact ASQ Community Care.

I have already voted against the Bylaw Changes. As you know from past discussions we have had I feel that the Board as it is is very uncommunicative and there are many more people than just the international chair making the accusation that the Board worked up these bylaws changes in great secrecy. There is a very similar communication from a Regional Director (against the loss of representation by the Sections and Regions) that has made its way to Elsmar.com.

I really believe the Board needs to make a fast turnaround on the perception the membership has of it. My own personal recommendation is that ASQ do what it had already identified it ought to do through the Partnership Study. Actions that remain unimplemented and overrun by the "Living Strategy" which has gone off on the opposite tack of what the Partnership Study recommended.

Steve Prevette
ASQ Section 614 Chair.

Simple query:
To whom did you reply, Steve?

Clay Hodges, ASQ SAC Chair
Elizabeth (Liz) Keim, ASQ President 2002-2003, Chair of the Board 2003-2004
Ken Case, ASQ President 2003-2004, Chair of the Board 2004-2005
or all three?

No mystery how I voted - NO!
If this were a Parliament form of government, we would definitely have a no confidence vote due. If I had my "druthers," I'd want a recall vote for ALL current elected officers and pay for it by terminating Paul E. Borawski and his $300,000 salary.

I would sure like to know the original architect of the proposed By-Law changes to mark him/her for special scorn!

As Section Chair, I got the same message yesterday and thought about posting it, so I'm glad to see that Steve did. One less thing on my to-do list today!

As I read through the response I was disgusted to find there was nothing substantive. It was like the adults in a Peanuts movie: "wah, wah, wah".

It's pretty sad that the board and headquarters management staff feel the need to rid themselves of field representation, and it's clearer than ever that they've forgotten why they exist. QA people, as Wes has pointed out from time-to-time, are not usually great with politics. I think we all like things to be straightforward and unequivocal. This move by the Board is anything but straightforward and it's left many of us wondering about motives and disgusted by the secrecy games.

Here's another great reason why I love The Cove. It's egalitarian, WYSIWYG, and substantive.

$300,000? Please tell me you are kidding.

[QUOTE=Wes Bucey]Simple query:
To whom did you reply, Steve?
[QUOTE]
I simply replied to the sender of the email, Leta Thrasher in community care. She was the one who forwarded the message on, so she can do as she wants with the reply (which was solicited in the message).

I just asked both Leta and my Regional Director for email addresses for Keim, Hodges and Case. I will share them when I get them.

I just asked both Leta and my Regional Director for email addresses for Keim, Hodges and Case. I will share them when I get them.
Actually, those email addresses can be obtained in the members area of the ASQ web page. Here's the listing for the Board of Directors:

http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/pos/brd/board_directors.pdf

Thanks, Steve. I hate going to the ASQ Website. Historically it was very hard to navigate and I developed an aversion to it.

It's a little early for you out there in the left coast!

Thanks, Steve. I hate going to the ASQ Website. Historically it was very hard to navigate and I developed an aversion to it.

It's a little early for you out there in the left coast!
Eh? Got to the office a little after 6AM. Just need to wrap up the month's projects to prepare for the onslaught of a new month of data tomorrow. Last month, in the first three days of the month I made 805 charts and files.

Since I am a section chair, I received the following email today:
This message is sent on behalf of Clay Hodges, ASQ SAC Chair . . .


Maybe it's just me, but those letters seemed to have hints of desperation. I guess, the feedback the "heads" (shrunken, swollen, etc.) at ASQ are getting is giving them a feeling that the proposal won't pass. Why are they so "hot-n-heavy" on these changes at this time? Also, given the lack of response to questions posed by ASQ members by ASQ "leadership" should we expect some sort of temper tantrum by ASQ for not taking our medicine (ie, not passing the proposal)?

Even though I haven't been directly involved in the quality field in the past few years, I've still maintained my membership because of the importance I feel quality holds in any process or industry. The reality is though, can I be spending my membership dues in a better area?

I voted "no" on the proposals, as there wasn't anything which clearly improved the current state IMO.

Wayne

805!! :eek: 805?? :mg:

I guess I understand why you're in at 6AM! Zounds!

:topic: Total for March (so far) is 2,173 :topic:

By the way, it would be worth documenting what ASQ "could have done" that would have avoided some of these negative feelings. There was an attempt to poll the membership (or maybe it was just the "leadership"), anyway, I know I was solicited for opinions. But, as usual, the information went in a one-way direction - to ASQ. No, I didn't expect a personal reply to my input, but there was no attempt to collect what input they got and feed it back to those who gave the input and say "Thank you for responding. What we heard you all to say was . . . and this is how we will work it into the new bylaws . . ."

There was an attempt to poll the membership (or maybe it was just the "leadership"), anyway, I know I was solicited for opinions. "

There was no attempt to poll section leadership in my region. However, I'm sure my RD made his voice heard. It doesn't seem to have made a difference, however.

By the way, it would be worth documenting what ASQ "could have done" that would have avoided some of these negative feelings. There was an attempt to poll the membership (or maybe it was just the "leadership"), anyway, I know I was solicited for opinions. But, as usual, the information went in a one-way direction - to ASQ. No, I didn't expect a personal reply to my input, but there was no attempt to collect what input they got and feed it back to those who gave the input and say "Thank you for responding. What we heard you all to say was . . . and this is how we will work it into the new bylaws . . ."
Need any better proof of the "disconnect" between "leaders" and "members"?

I, for one, don't need some paternalistic egotist telling me what's "good" for me. Give me the facts and let me make my own decision. Ideally, let me be part of the process. This is a management error in many organizations - management says "I know best. Just do exactly what I tell you. I will not allow any input from you on how to make the process better."

The entire point of "Red Beads" by Deming was that management errs in thinking its original process is the only correct way to accomplish a task.

Corporations send out customer surveys and collect and catalog the results, but they short circuit the process by failing to analyze the results for ways to improve the process. So, too, has ASQ created muda by sending out surveys, but refusing to analyze the results to see if
(1) the surveys are going to the right people;
(2) the surveys have clues for improvement.

Finally, they err by not maintaining free and open communication between all members of the organization on ways to improve.

Though I have been involved for many years, I must now ask, why is an ASQ or an IQA even necessary? And I am struggling to find an answer.

Last year I posted an observation about the origin and purpose of professional bodies. My views are unchanged. But, since the dissemination and sharing of information purpose is the main reason for such organizations' existence, I am increasingly of the view such places as the Cove and Saferpack provide a superior service to quality practitioners, professionals and bystanders than these venerable, traditional societies.

I can see no reason why we can not set up a truly International Institute/ Society for Quality Professionals using perhaps the Cove as the meeting forum.

It is for these reasons, though the squabbling about the proposed ASQ changes may seem important, one must ask, "Does it really matter?" How much "representation" does the average member seek from a RD or a section? Are not section meetings about sharing information and experience? And, since the typical section meeting attracts perhaps 5-10% of the section members, it would seem the majority are not entirely caring about section affairs or representation. Moreover, in what way are the sections ACTUALLY different from each other requiring DIFFERENT forms of representation? And in a globalized world what SHOULD be a section?

There are many other such questions I am pondering. But, members do not owe ASQ or IQA or any other body a living. As I have said before, they exist through one's discretionary expenditure (one might even say "charity"). They cannot function without volunteers (the Cove has plenty of them); they are subsidised by many company's that unwittingly allow staff to conduct their business during their time, make phone calls to the employers' accounts etc. And if these organizations really offered value for money, why are they losing members at a time when "quality" is ever more important? A part of the asnwer is that members are unwilling to reach into their own pocket to find the dues: as employers increasingly refuse to reimburse dues, members are answering that key question.

And, I am truly wearied of hearing peoples' complaints about the slow/ poor/ tardy/ semi-rude/ arrogant/ service and attitude exhibited by HQ staff.

It is all rather sad. But, I really do not care about the boards or their petty politics and games, changes to regulations/ constitutions or whatever. It has absolutely no relevance to my business or my ability to put bread on the table. While they play these games of self importance, our national businesses must get on with their business.

I seriously think it may be time for a few people to get together and consider foring a new body, more relevant to today's world and technology. For the moment, I will keep to myself my thoughts on how this could be done.

$300,000? Please tell me you are kidding.
Tomorrow, I might kid (April Fool), but today, I am dead serious.

From my post in ASQ Forums:

As a 501(C)3 not-for-profit organization, ASQ is required to file Form 990 with the IRS. It becomes a public document. There is a website, Guidestar, which reprints the Form 990 from most organizations. (http://www.guidestar.org (http://www.guidestar.org/))

ASQ's 2003 Form is available there as a pdf file. (2004 isn't due, yet) You can register for free on the site to view and/or download the file.

I have written about this resource on occasion here in the Forum. It's where you can learn that Paul Borawski, the ASQ Executive Director, pulls down more than $300,000/year from ASQ. I strongly recommend EVERY dues paying member familiarize himself or herself with the Form. There are some very interesting details to be learned.-Wes Bucey, Quality Manager

Paul Borawski, the ASQ Executive Director, pulls down more than $300,000/year from ASQ.



Wes:

In my mind, here is a question, the answer to which might tell us a lot:

Is Mr. Borawski a Certified Quality Manager?

Wes:

In my mind, here is a question, the answer to which might tell us a lot:

Is Mr. Borawski a Certified Quality Manager?



What about any of the board members? Is this a board which supports and participates in the certifications which their own organization espouses, or is it just an elite private club with a lot of back patting and such?

Wayne

What about any of the board members? Is this a board which supports and participates in the certifications which their own organization espouses, or is it just an elite private club with a lot of back patting and such?

Wayne
Elected Board Memebers have good credentials re: Quality.
(http://www.asq.org/join/about/board.html)
Question is their commitment to fellow members or is it to getting themselves on the lecture circuit or promoting their own careers?

Paid employees of ASQ making over $100,000/year often get more in cash and perqs than comparable commercial organizations pay for same task. They tend to be a "self-perpetuating, self-congratulatory" bunch, regardless of which non-profit employs them. Further, non-profit execs move freely between organizations (a charity this year, an association next year, etc.)

:topic: I don't currently hold a certification from ASQ. (except Senior member status)
(I never found it necessary for employment and have sufficient self-assurance of my talent and skill that I don't need to pay a third party to validate me. Does that make me arrogant? Maybe. Does it affect whether I know stuff about Quality and can use it? You be the judge.)

Here, in order of overall revenues, are the results of a quick check of some organizations you all might be familiar with. The columns are name, total revenues, Dues collected, Salary of the director (not including other benefits and defered compensation, which can be considerable), the management expenses and the program expenses. Other than Director salary, all numbers are in millions of $


Name.....Revenues..Dues....Dir Sal.....Mgmt....Program
IEEE......227......40.7....411,000.....6.6....212.4
ASME.......61.......8.3....246,000....11.7.....57.1
SAE........48.......4.3....265,000....13.0.....35.8
ASQ........37.......9.0....317,000.....9.5.....29.4
ASTM.......36.......2.3....342,000.....3.1.....27.8
SPE........18.......3.0....240,000.......0.....17.7

These are numbers from tax forms filed by the various groups. The info is all available on-line.


Some highlights:
* ASQ is by far highest in % of revenue from dues. 24% compared to 18% for IEEE.

* ASQ is a close 2nd highest in (Management expense)/(Program expense). 32% for ASQ compared to 36% for SAE. For every $3 spend on programs, $1 is spent on management. (I still haven't figured out how SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers) can pay a director but not have any managment expenses!)

* The director's salary seems pretty much in line with other organizations.

I did follow-through and emailed Ken Case, Liz Keim and Ken Hodges on my concerns with the By-laws. I received a phone call from Ken Case, who talked about the process that the BoD went through. He said that they decided to keep the drafts confidential because there was a problem, even on the Board, with keeping document control straight on the revisions.

I told him that while the process may have been very logical and clear to those on the board, those of us in the field felt like they'd been hit by a frieght train in the dark. He said that some RDs were better at communicating than others and with the reduced involvement on the board, the RDs should have more time to focus on regional communication. (This came across like a rebuke in my opinion)

I told him of my frustration with ASQ's revenue focus and lack of leadership in being a clearing house for quality and peer-to-peer sharing. He admitted that ASQ had been slow to implement these ideas. He also agreed that the web site is a problem. I told him that I no longer go to ASQ for information on quality issues, but use Elsmar Cove. He has been to the Cove to read about the perceptions we have of ASQ. :)

I also received two lengthy emails from Paul Borawski, who said the RDs were given two sets of talking points to explain what was going on to their section leadership. There was also a survey, which I did not get. However, my RD clearly said that the RDs had been muzzled on this topic. And my RD is a straight shooter, who has been involved all the way on this process, so I believe him.


I also got a brief email from Liz Keim that simply said: "I am sorry that you are concerned with what is happening with the bylaws. Please believe I had the best of intentions when I proposed the changes. We took alto fo (typo)feedback into account, as well as the experience of those who have had the opportunity to chair Sections, Divisions and serve on the Board. I hope you will look at the changes, understand what the Board is trying to accomplish and vote as you feel is appropriate."

I was pleased that I got responses from Case and Borawski, I certainly wasn't expecting them. However, I'm left with the impression that the Board is feeling very defensive and misunderstood on the dust-up over the By-laws and other complaints that I expressed. Borawski asked for my input on how the By-law changes should have been communicated, because the Board "did the best we knew how".

He too, has been to the Cove.

I know it's impossible to please everyone and there probably is a very real problem with doing business with a Board of 32 members, but the secrecy thing, though denied, is what most bothers me.

One frequent gadfly has called my various imprecations about ASQ, ASQ elected leaders, and ASQ top paid employees "rhetoric"

. . . [this is an excerpt of the entire post which ASQ members can read at http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/thread.jspa?threadID=1225&tstart=0&forumID=24 (http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/thread.jspa?threadID=1225&tstart=0&forumID=24) (ASQ Discussion Boards » ASQ Member Discussion Boards » Quality Roundtable » New Bylaws and membership model )] . . .Or, I suspect, I believe in HAVING tactics, and you rely on raw rhetoric.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but that rhetoric is not going to endear you to the intelligent professional who (I believe) makes up the average ASQ member. "Infection?" "Demagoguery?" "Sleeping Beauty?" "Dwarves?"

How old do you think the average reader is here?

Yours is not the kind of plea that will spark real interest in most folks, I think. It's definitely "lunatic fringe" stuff.

When I wrote
The truth of elections is that most folks vote their emotions rather than their heads. We need an emotional message to cut through the overwhelming gloom of apathy which has gripped our membership. If we hope to create vigor, we must be vigorous. We must be emotional (based on documented facts, of course.)

If it is true that change cannot be effected until the group has organization-wide dissatisfaction with the status quo, then we must be the infection agent, infecting ASQ with an organization-wide dissatisfaction with the status quo.

If this sounds like demogoguery, it is! We need to rouse our Association from slumber! Otherwise, it's just like Sleeping Beauty, asleep in the woods, tended by dwarves!-Wes Bucey, Quality Manager

In my opinion, Keim, Case, and Borawski are engaging in exactly the kind of "firefighting" we often counsel against in the Quality profession. It appears they neglected any kind of FMEA before launching into the bylaws change. They attempted to "railroad and jawbone" by limiting Regional Directors to a "pre-approved" list of talking points when communicating with members.

Now these "professionals" express shock and amazement that their plan is facing opposition. Why?

This tactic of calling or emailing dissenters to mollify them is a tried and true political tactic to quiet opposition voices by apparently singling dissenters out as folks of "special quality."

I don't want a private communication from these folks. I want it public and on record where they will be held accountable for their comments.

For the past three years, we (the gang of four) lobbied, whined, and begged for changes in the ASQ Forum software. What we eventually got matched none of the recommendations or requirements offered by the GOF or any other ASQ member.

That pretty much capsulizes what I hear from current members about dissatisfaction with ASQ - no sense of listening to the real customers (members) about anything, even something as small and insignificant as Forum software.

Many of my acquaintances who were former members say their primary reason for dropping membership was a sense of paying money for no value returned.

The choice is clear:

drop membership and eliminate the grief from your life
or
lobby for a complete (but gradual) regime change by identifying and backing candidates who pledge to try to change the status quo within their terms of office by introducing two main concepts:


Members are the primary customers of ASQ.
The primary benefit for members is creating receptive attitudes for hiring Quality professionals at workplaces throughout the world.

... The primary benefit for members is creating receptive attitudes for hiring Quality professionals at workplaces throughout the world.
[/list]
This is precisely what I have been harping about, but I get the sense they are still thinking big business and Maine is mostly small businesses. Paul talked about peer-to-peer interactions with senior executives to spread awareness on quality principles and philosophies. I know of very few places that have such people for section members to peer-to-peer with. We need to start much earlier in developing the mindset where quality management among non-manufacturers is more than inspirational slogan posters and customer survey cards.

As usual, Wes, you have some thought-provoking ideas.

One point where I would beg to differ (or at least suggest a revision) is the second of your two guiding principles for ASQ:



Members are the primary customers of ASQ.
The primary benefit for members is creating receptive attitudes for hiring Quality professionals at workplaces throughout the world.


I'm not quite sure how to boil down what I want to say into one sentence, but the second point above sounds a bit too much like "lobbying" or "advertising." To me the key is self-improvement of the members - through training, meetings, publications, and peer-to-peer interaction. Sure, ASQ needs to brag a bit about what "quality" can do, but perhaps more importantly, the members themselves should be championing quality through their own expertise.

Perhaps something like "The primary benefit is providing members opportunities for continuous improvement, thereby enhancing their own careers and creating receptive attitudes for hiring Quality professionals at workplaces throughout the world"

Tim F

As usual, Wes, you have some thought-provoking ideas.

One point where I would beg to differ (or at least suggest a revision) is the second of your two guiding principles for ASQ:



I'm not quite sure how to boil down what I want to say into one sentence, but the second point above sounds a bit too much like "lobbying" or "advertising." To me the key is self-improvement of the members - through training, meetings, publications, and peer-to-peer interaction. Sure, ASQ needs to brag a bit about what "quality" can do, but perhaps more importantly, the members themselves should be championing quality through their own expertise.

Perhaps something like "The primary benefit is providing members opportunities for continuous improvement, thereby enhancing their own careers and creating receptive attitudes for hiring Quality professionals at workplaces throughout the world"

Tim F

It is difficult to brag when the people around you haven't got a holy clue what you are talking about--nor do they think they need to hear it, whilst they drown in poor results.

Awareness in systemic quality management and analytical thinking is so low here that we could really use some advertisement.

For example, continuous improvement has been described as this cycle: A company noted a large number of back injuries. The management ordered a round of safe lifting training. Six months later they recounted and realized the injury rates had not decreased. So they took another look and realized people were working in such cramped places they couldn't lift properly. The company addressed that, and injury rates went down. Yes, they improved, but it was not well-considered. They didn't have the imagination to make a chart that separated causes of incidents from each other.

Meanwhile, I will keep telling my Stealth Quality message such as in my Training Expense article (submitted to the area's Chamber for its book) and in a speech I am offering, "It's Not Your Uncle's Workforce Anymore," describing the "failing" conditions of young workers and how to deal with them.