Puget Sound Chapter

Curmudgeon’s Corner; Moving on

Posted: April 27, 2010

By Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA

We just went through another round of bylaws amendments, and unless we decide to throw everything out and start over, we should be about done. The reason behind many of the amendments goes back to the governance initiative recommended by the Board and approved by the members just a couple of years ago. As you may recall, one of the biggest changes was to reduce the board of directors from twenty-nine members to eighteen. We’re well on the way now; we soon will be down to twenty board members.

The intent of the governance amendment was to create a smaller board, one that would be more nimble, more efficient, and more forward thinking. With that in mind, let us consider two Board activities: creation of a new committee to oversee the way members use their dues, and expanding CSI’s visibility and influence through increased participation of corporations.

Region Allocation Program Oversight Committee

Along with the reduction in size of the Board came a division of responsibilities. Institute Directors now will focus primarily on matters pertaining to operation of the Institute, while operation of the regions, formerly part of the Institute Directors’ duties, now is delegated to the regions. This created a problem; while Institute Directors had annual travel budgets for visiting chapters, region officers would now have to find other sources of funding for region business.

The response was the Region Allocation Program (RAP). Under this new program, regions no longer have to rely on chapter assessments for operating funds. Instead, the Institute sends a percentage of the basic membership dues directly to the regions. At one stroke, this addressed three problems: the lack of funding for region travel, the difficulty of collecting assessments, and the “missing” income that was not collected from at-large members. This is essentially the same process used for chapter dues - the Institute collects chapter dues, then sends the money to the chapters. As far as I know, this system has worked well for a long time without any special attention.

However, it was decided that the transfer of funds to regions required supervision by the Institute, and a Region Allocation Program Oversight Committee was formed, the intent being to “administer the Region Allocation Program (RAP) and evaluate the program’s effectiveness.” The oversight committee has since been quizzing regions and chapters, trying to figure out what’s going on in chapters and regions.

In either case, is it not the members’ money, to be used as the regions or chapters determine? The Region Allocation Program was a good idea, but do we need an oversight committee to decide if regions are spending their money wisely?

Increased participation of corporations

Another topic, which our board of directors has discussed many times, is corporate participation in CSI. To put this in the proper perspective, our bylaws state that “Firms or corporations are not eligible for membership” and I certainly don’t want to try to change the bylaws to allow corporate membership. However, it seems that we should be able to allow companies to participate in CSI without being corporate members, and to show their participation through use of the CSI logo and some expression of their relationship with CSI. This would benefit both the company and CSI by showing the company’s support and by making CSI more visible. AIA and USGBC have shown the value of cooperation between companies and organizations; it’s time CSI stopped trying to ignore the importance of those companies that pay the bills.

We often have lamented the fact that while ordinary people are aware of AIA, they have no idea what CSI is. And in only a few years, USGBC has become possibly the most-recognized construction organization. Should CSI pursue greater participation by companies? Should corporate participation be acknowledged by allowing companies to display the CSI logo? Isn’t it time to gain more visibility by promoting CSI through every means possible?

Express your opinion!

How are the Region Allocation Program and corporate participation related? They’re not, but members should take advantage of this year’s annual meeting to express their views on these subjects. Given a choice between the two, members will be better served by more visibility and recognition than by an oversight committee. And I believe it is a choice. Board members have only so much time, and the total time available is much less than what it was. It is more important than ever that the Board focus on those things that will make CSI more important and attract new members, and avoid activities that sound good but do not contribute to the mission.

While it is too late to submit a resolution, these and other issues still may be brought to the annual meeting as “Other Business.” The governance amendment made it possible to bring meaning to the annual meeting, so take advantage of it to tell your board of directors what you think is important!

© 2010, Sheldon Wolfe