For voting members of ASQ, I'm curious how you voted or will vote on the By-Laws changes. Besides the vote, I'd like to see your explanation for the vote.

If we were in a plenary session, this would be a vote by show of hands, not a secret ballot. The vote would be taken AFTER you had ample time to discuss pros and cons of the issues YOU perceive. Everyone would know your position.

Link to proposed changes (32 page pdf file):
http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/bylaws/sb/bylaws_proposed02_05.pdf

I voted NO.

I do not believe the changes will benefit the members of ASQ. They are primarily for the convenience of top level paid staff.

I voted yes, before I had seen the comments of Wes, and others. I now wish I could change my vote.

:mad:

I voted yes, before I had seen the comments of Wes, and others. I now wish I could change my vote.

:mad:
Yes! Precisely the value of free and open discussion before such an important vote.

I voted No.

Our regional director came to our monthly meeting and explained the changes from his perspective.

"We get less representation and the process was handled secretely."

This may or may not be true but he was the only one available to give us an explanation.

Gerry

If you didn't know about it until the Regional Director's visit, it WAS secret from you!

Though to be fair, the poll responses really should just be "yes" or "no".

I am not aware of how ASQ balloting is done but it has crossed my mind that a no response from members gets counted as a yes vote. For those that receive stockholders proxy vote information, that is how the system works for listed companies. If done the same way, the bylaw changes will pass with "overwhelming support from the members".

Bill Pflanz

In other words, Bill, you are saying that apathy on the part of members, resulting in ignoring the ballot, will have the same outcome as any other election, where only those who care enough to vote can influence the outcome of an election?

I will check the current ASQ By-Laws to confirm whether a non-vote actually counts as a "Yes" or whether it has an effect on the Quorum required.

When I report, I will cite the exact part which addresses the issue.

Thanks for raising the issue.

Count me among those voting no - a big help in reaching the decision was information posted on the cove. Also, our regional director emailed information to our section outlining reasons to vote no - the information from ASQ management was not as persuasive.

I am not aware of how ASQ balloting is done but it has crossed my mind that a no response from members gets counted as a yes vote. For those that receive stockholders proxy vote information, that is how the system works for listed companies. If done the same way, the bylaw changes will pass with "overwhelming support from the members".

Bill Pflanz
Apparently, the members have already given ultimate power over most of the by-laws to the Board of Directors (without confirmation being required by members) - way too cozy for my liking.

10.1.2 Bylaws may be amended in the following manner:
(1) Board of Directors - Except as otherwise provided by law, in
the Certificate of Incorporation or in these Bylaws, the
following may be amended at a duly constituted meeting of
the Board of Directors by a vote of at least 75% of the
members present:
Section 2.2 2.4 2.5 [membership status]
Section 3.1 3.6 [tax exempt status]
Section 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 [section & int'l chapter rules]
Section 5.3 5.4 5.5 [division & interest group rules]
Section 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 [Executive Board Rules - Quorum, voting, indemnification, duties - see comment below]
Section 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 [committees, duties, quorums, etc.]
(2) Regular Members - Except as otherwise provided by law, in the
Certificate of Incorporation or in these Bylaws, all other provisions
of these Bylaws may be amended when recommended by 75% of
the entire Board of Directors and approved by a two-thirds
majority of at least 2,500 Regular Members (which constitutes a
quorum for the transaction of business) present in person or by
proxy.
10.3.2 Proposed amendments shall be adopted if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
(1) At least two thousand five hundred (2,500) Regular Members
in good standing of the Society vote.
(2) A at least two-thirds of the Regular Members voting are in
favor of the proposed amendment.
10.3.3 Adoption of proposed amendments voted by the membership shall be
declared at the Annual Meeting. Amendments approved by the Board
of Directors shall be effective as determined by the Board of Directors.
New amendments shall be included in subsequent publications of the
Bylaws.
(1) If the adopted amendment changes the composition of the
Board of Directors, the members of the Board of Directors
shall complete their elected terms before the amendment
becomes effective.
(2) If the adopted amendment conflicts with the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Society, the Certificate of Incorporation
must be similarly amended and approved and filed by the
proper state authority before the amendment becomes
effective.

Apparently, we members have already allowed ourselves to cede more and more power to the elected officials. This is roughly analogous to giving the United States Senate and House of Representatives the power to change the United States Constitution without going to the individual states for ratification.

I'm no longer certain what is was we voted yes or no on in terms of the bylaws if this much power already resides in the executive board.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/offtopic-d2.gif An ASQ member posted a query in the ASQ Forum whether any of the "Gang of Four" (appellation for some Covers who are active on the ASQ Forum) were running for office. It was meant to be "a snide remark." I responded:
Current rule for nomination is:
"By petition of at least one (1) percent of Regular Members in good
standing of the Society (based on the number of Regular Members at
the close of the last fiscal year). Regular Members from at least two
(2) regions and five (5) Sections must have signed the petition. These
petitions must be received by the Secretary at least one hundred (100)
days before the Annual Meeting. The Nominating Committee shall
then confirm the qualifications and willingness to serve of each petition
candidate."
Bylaws changes proposed would reduce that nominating petition to 100 members, no geographic distribution - hence a determined Section could produce its own slate of candidates under the new proposed rules.

This change would be roughly analogous to letting a populous state like California or New York create a slate of candidates for all national offices, including Senate and Congressional seats from other states. Does that seem in the best interests of ASQ members?-Wes Bucey, Quality Manager


Need I add the potential power of the Cove under the proposed rule? Yet, I voted against it because it is not good for the regular member, even though I or my friends could personally benefit from the proposed change.

Well, I guess we could vote again by not continuing to pay dues. I am a Senior Member, and a CQE who first joined ASQC in 1967. Dropped out in about 1977, then rejoined again in 1982 and have been a continuing member since then. So, if the membership ceases to exist what happens to the Directors? duh!
I just received an e-mail last week stating that renewals are now due. Have not renewed yet.

Well, I guess we could vote again by not continuing to pay dues. I am a Senior Member, and a CQE who first joined ASQC in 1967. Dropped out in about 1977, then rejoined again in 1982 and have been a continuing member since then. So, if the membership ceases to exist what happens to the Directors? duh!
I just received an e-mail last week stating that renewals are now due. Have not renewed yet.


I received one as well. What it comes down to for me is a decision as to the value of continuing my certifications and the free magazine. That's it. Hmmmm.

Current membership is valid through June 30. Sense of urgency is to let the paid staff have use of the money early.

I haven't renewed my membership either; this is probably not a surprise to our group.

It's been almost four years since I felt as though my membership had true professional value. It just doesn't seem to fit in the landscape in my area.

It all seems reminiscent of "Animal Farm". But perhaps the organization is enetring the stage of "injelititis" described by C Northcote Parkinson in his book, "Parkinson's Law" After all, as he observes one of the sure signs of terminal dec,line is when the bureaucrats have built for themselves and their comfort a grandiose HQ. Maybe the situation is a combination of the two!