I just recieved an email from ASQ concerning a contested election for President. The race is between:

Michael D. Nichols Candidate nominated by the Nominating Committee
Daniel E. Sniezek Candidate by Petition

Can anyone give me any idea what each of these guys plan to do?

Hello Craig:

I don't know who those two people are. Nor did I know there was even an election. Curious that you recieved the e mail from the ASQ but I did not. I wonder how the ASQ is distributing such information?

Regards,

Dirk

We are supposed to get a one page statement from each with the election ballot. ASQ has a bunch of rules that prevent any "campaigning" to be performed.

I have met Dan, he's a great guy and has made a good connection with those of us (The Gang of Four for example) that have been on the outside of ASQ knocking on the door to get in.

The past year has been good with ASQ, there has been a new openness under Jerry Maraini. Personally, I think it would be good to bring in an "outsider" to run ASQ rather than the single-party system of nominating only one person to run for each office that has been practiced for the last 20 years at least.

One deciding factor for me is the ASQ pick is a Six Sigma person, and Dan is not.

For the ASQ members, here is a link to their bios.

http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/elections/2006-07-election-bios.html

If you follow the directions in the email, you'll find directions to profiles on each of the candidates. According to society rules, no one in ASQ leadership positions is allowed to campaign for a candidate, and I'm sure that BOTH candidates are qualified.

I do know Dan Sneizek, who is the Regional Director of Region 2, where I am a section chair. I am not campaigning for Dan, but will say that he has provided excellent leadership and local support for the last 4 years. You can read about his other accomplishments and qualifications in the profile.

In my personal opinion, this election is very much about the future direction of ASQ. It's no secret that the ASQ local sections have been very unhappy with the direction of the Board over the past several years.

Whomever you decide to vote for, please VOTE. We haven't had a choice for 20 years. Dirk, I'm sure with the volume of email that is going out on the proxy vote, that the emails will take most of the day to reach all the membership, so if you haven't received the letter, I'm sure you will.

Hello Rosie:

I just got my election proxy. I jumped the gun.

I was going to post a link to the candidate bios but Steve beat me to it.

Regards,

Dirk

Glad to see some input here. I just got my notification too. I read both biographies, and was hoping for some "Cove" comments before I decidied my vote.
Thanks Steve and Rosie for your comments

Received my notice a little bit ago. Glad to hear some discussion of the candidates here on the Cove. It would be nice if ASQ national became a little more customer oriented.

Thanks Steve and Rosie for your comments

Just as long as we don't get accused of "Campaigning":(

I agree that more openness is needed.

I give Dan a lot of credit. He stormed the bastions to get on the ballot, and give us the opportunity to have a choice instead of being handed a result.

It comes down to the difference between a regional based society (sections) and industry based society (divisions). ASQ is struggling with the model that will meet its members needs.

Not sure the President matters, as much as it matters that members voice their concerns to the BoD.

It comes down to the difference between a regional based society (sections) and industry based society (divisions). ASQ is struggling with the model that will meet its members needs.

Not sure the President matters, as much as it matters that members voice their concerns to the BoD.

I'm not sure I agree with the sections vs. divisions. I am in a "non-traditional" industry and am not in the "quality" department. Though, every so often the conflict occurs between the VP who has the QA department and the VP of the Safety and Health department. I think there is room for both.

I think, as found by the Partnership Study, there is a conflict of interest between the purveyors of the latest fad for money and the practitioners. This I think is the internal conflict.

If the members could voice their concerns to the BoD with any hope of being heard and considered, we wouldn't be where we were a year ago at this time. I do think things are somewhat better, but ASQ (Maraini) expects that the Sections and Section Chairs will be heard through the Region Directors. And that definitely ain't happening. So we have the tug and pull between the Section Affairs Council and the RD's.

I'm not sure I agree with the sections vs. divisions. I am in a "non-traditional" industry and am not in the "quality" department. Though, every so often the conflict occurs between the VP who has the QA department and the VP of the Safety and Health department. I think there is room for both.

For you, the question is does the Statistics Division serve you better than your local section? For me, it is the Biomedical and Statistics Division versus my local section. I find the Divisions offer me much more than any section.

I have already post my vote for Dan for many of the same reasons as Steve Prevette noted. I would not say that ASQ is pitting division versus section as much as Milwaukee versus everyone else. ASQ created a special forum for section and division leaders (which I think should be open to the public) in which both have expressed their dissatisfaction with ASQ and the feeling that one is being favored over the other. Stat Steve should remember that the sections through volunteer efforts do a lot of work for members on proving training classes, certifications and re-certifications besides the local meetings.

I am not sure that division, section or regional leaders have much say. Although incremental, Steve P is corrected in saying that Jerry and others are trying to make some changes. Electing an outsider may help move things along or they may just stonewall Dan while they wait for him to leave. ASQ also has the goofy rule that there can be no campaigning for the offices. It would be better if they had made both candidates be subjected to public questioning through the ASQ discussion board and the openness to the organization that they keep bragging about.

Bill Pflanz

Electing an outsider may help move things along or they may just stonewall Dan while they wait for him to leave. ASQ also has the goofy rule that there can be no campaigning for the offices. It would be better if they had made both candidates be subjected to public questioning through the ASQ discussion board and the openness to the organization that they keep bragging about.

Bill Pflanz
:soap:
I worry that the top five paid ASQ staff pretty much make the elected officers drones with no real power, regardless whether they are long-term "move-up-the-ladder" candidates or wild cards like Dan.

Over the years, candidates often dropped out of the "supply chain" before they reached the top. I would venture to say at least SOME dropped out due to frustration in trying to move a giant, inert object like ASQ in any direction (good or bad for the members.) Certainly, the entrenched bureaucrats are loathe to cooperate in any initiative which would endanger their jobs.

The reality of "realpolitik" is that it takes years of concerted effort to embed enough elected officials to mount a "palace coup" against the bureaucrats. It is doubly difficult to get elected officials in place when the rules prohibit advocacy for a candidate.
(from various sources)
realpolitik:
A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.

The German compound word "Realpolitik", from the words "real" (meaning "realistic", "practical", or "actual") and "Politik" (meaning "politics"). It focuses on the balance of power among nation-states. Realpolitik is foreign policy based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than ideals or ethics.

Bismarck coined the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power was the means for keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th Century, arms races and alliances occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.
Currently, we do not have a balance of power between members and paid bureaucrats within ASQ. Over the years, we have ceded more and more decision making power to the bureaucrats and turned ourselves into the cash cows that support their lifestyles.

There are folks who like the comfort of having someone else make all their decisions for them. From what I read in the various posts, the average Cove member is NOT the kind of person who willingly lets someone else make his decisions for him. Sadly, those folks with the very traits which would make them excellent compatriots in a struggle to retake control of the ASQ are the ones who have left the organization in frustration at trying to be the tail wagging the dog.:frust:

:soap:Currently, we do not have a balance of power between members and paid bureaucrats within ASQ. Over the years, we have ceded more and more decision making power to the bureaucrats and turned ourselves into the cash cows that support their lifestyles.

I don't disagree with your comments, Wes, but the only way changes will be made if enough people keep talking to ASQ until something happens.

Also, the decision makers in many large corporations are not the founders and have become bureaucratic and act as cash cows while the workers support their lifestyles. They are not much different than the non-profit organization bureaucrat.

Bill Pflanz

Can anyone point to an official statement that says campaigning for office is forbidden???

After a rather futile search for information about the elections on the ASQ site, I finally found a link. Not under the section "About ASQ" nor in "Membership." It is hidden in a press release from last December. It lists the candidates and then at the bottom of the page says

"ASQ's election rules preclude candidates from campaigning or having others campaign for them. Any campaign activities should be reported to ASQ Headquarters."

I checked the bylaws and found info about nominating, about the elections, but not a word about campaigning. I check a few other policy statments, and still found nothing about campaigning for office. You can look yourself at http://www.asq.org/about-asq/how-we-do/documents.html.


So.... is there really such a policy?


Tim F

If there is a written policy, I don't remember voting on it in the last ten or so years, but seeing as this is the first time in 20 years there has been a contested office, the rule may be dozens of years old.

Oddly, a hasty search shows no penalty for violating this "rule." This is sort of like saying, "We have a rule against murder, but if you murder someone, we don't have a mechanism for dealing with you."

Back on topic:
Anyone interested in reading the position papers of each of the candidates for the first contested national office in ASQ in 20 years? If so, I'll inquire of the candidates if they would be willing to allow their position papers to be posted on a public site - currently posted on members only ASQ web pages.

I know many of us, including me, have been unhappy with the direction and decisions of ASQ leadship for the last 6-7 years.

Maybe Dan, if elected, will be roadblocked by the hometown posse, but I'd like to see him be given the opportunity to try. And if he is blocked, then all of us need to be very vocal about how we feel about it.

I think Jerry Mairiani is an honest, up-front guy. Surely there must be a couple more in chair positions who are interested in changing the staus quo instead of ignoring their grassroots constituency.

For you, the question is does the Statistics Division serve you better than your local section? For me, it is the Biomedical and Statistics Division versus my local section. I find the Divisions offer me much more than any section.

For all it's worth (and I do not want to propagate a divisions vs. sections conflict), I get more from my section (of course, you must take into account I am the section chair) than from the Stats division.

For all it's worth (and I do not want to propagate a divisions vs. sections conflict), I get more from my section (of course, you must take into account I am the section chair) than from the Stats division.
Steve, it is not a conflict, it is how the society will add member value. For some they see the section as the best way to get their value from the society and others the division. The issue has been that sections and divisions did not play nicely together, so if your section wanted to have a meeting with a statistical topic, the division would complain that they "own" the BoK for that topic. It is silly, but it is about money! Division tend to have more money than the sections. It needs to stop!

I asked ASQ about the rules regarding campaigning and got a reply within a couple days. (I must compliment ASQ on how well they respond to member inquiries).

The key parts of the response are below. My conclusions are that

1) These rules were just recently created by the Nominating Committee, the executive director, and legal counsel. (I'm not completely sure that they have the authority to independently make such policy, though).

2) ASQ members may neither campaign for nor endorse a candidate. (So I could presumably present neutral information about the candidates, but not express my opinions. It would appear that these rules extend to any venue.)

3) It would be against the rules to have a candidate address groups. (We can't invite candidates to interact at the Cove).

4) The only information provided will be a brief bio of the candidates and their responses to 3 questions prepared by the Nominating Committee. (The questions are fairly broad, but the candidates have no other opportunity to addresss other issues that they think are important - unless you talk with them individually).



Are there rules regarding campaigning?

Yes — the Nominating Committee, in conjunction with ASQ’s executive director and
legal counsel, have created campaign guidelines to assure a level playing field and a
fair election. The practice of other professional associations was also considered.
Each candidate was provided the rules in November 2005.
The rules are:
1. In order to put each candidate on a level playing field:
a. Candidates are prohibited from campaigning, or having others
campaign for them.
b. There will be no use of ASQ mailing lists or other Society resources.
c. There will be no use of ASQ Society funds or solicitation of funds from
individual members or member units (sections, divisions, regions,
etc.) for campaign purposes.
d. ASQ organizations and its members, including committees, councils,
member units, and subsidiaries, cannot endorse a candidate either in
writing or verbally.
e. Candidates can talk to individual members who initiate contact with
them.

2. Each candidate shall respond to a questionnaire prepared by the Nominating
Committee—limited to one page, including questions.

3. Questionnaire responses, biographical information, and photographs shall be
received from each candidate no later than February 3, 2006.

4. The candidate’s biographical information, photo, and responses to the
questionnaire shall be distributed to all members in good standing with the
proxies.

5. The proxy process shall be administered by the Tellers Committee. The
Tellers Committee shall have the exclusive responsibility to monitor and
validate the election outcome.
a. Proxies shall be sent by the Society’s secretary to each Regular
member in good standing by February 23, 2006, in accordance with
Section 8.2 of the Bylaws.

Candidate Questionnaire
Name
Contact information including e-mail and phone number
Years of experience with ASQ
Business Experience
Education
Certifications
What are your views on the future of quality?
What is the greatest challenge facing ASQ, and how would you address it?
How can member units (including sections and divisions) better serve the needs of their members?
Tim F

And if US elections were run this way we wouldn't be calling this a democracy.:rolleyes:

And if US elections were run this way we wouldn't be calling this a democracy.:rolleyes:

That's because we aren't, we are a republic. A democracy is essentially two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. :bonk:

Wayne