ASQ (American Society for Quality) By-Laws Changes

[RosieA]

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.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by RosieA

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!

[Steve Prevette]

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

[Wes Bucey]

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.

[wmarhel]

Originally Posted by Marc

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

[Marc]

Originally Posted by wmarhel

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...

[howste]

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?

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by howste

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.