Why the membership would put forward a candidate that already served for 15 years (or more?) and simultaneously complain about board members seeking a second term is frankly beyond me.
@wimremes Yes, I served on the board for a while Not sure it was 15 years but won't argue that point. I would like to go back and look at history:
1) When I first got on the board, there was NO management team save for two people in the Boston area who were charged with running exams, depositing funds into a bank account, etc. but the balance of the work was done by Board members (Test Development, Finances, HR work (hiring firing, performance reviews), Strategy, all committees, etc.), Meetings were held almost monthly to accommodate this work load . Part of the Strategy developed was to build a management team to run the organization professionally thus allowing the board to become Strategic in nature. We accomplished this.
2) We looked at the board which were all North Americans and said this is not representative of the membership. We worked to find folk from other areas of the globe to either be appointed to the board or put on the ballot to be elected to the board (Freddy Tan (Singapore), Mervin Pearce (So. Africa), Ernesto Rosales (Mexico), John Colley (UK), Flemming Faber (Denmark), Richard Nealon (Ireland), Jill Slay (Australia), etc.).in an effort to internationalize the board. We accomplished this.
3) Members were asking for other services and what did they get for their fees (although this is still a question that I still hear ). We provided Chapters to members. This is a program that is ongoing and seems to be working quite well around the world. We accomplished this as well although work still needs to happen.
4) We worked with management (then) to develop Advisory Boards, first the Government Advisory board, to provide a sounding board for management to enable them to hear problems/concerns/issues/compliments from the constituency. Other advisory boards were also created. This we accomplished.
5) When members were looking for ways to connect, etc. we (board and management) came up with the concept of Security Congress. Yes, we also tried a few other things (CISSPForum) that did not work as well as hoped. Maybe we weren't as successful here.
6) There was a scholarship process in place however, it really did not promote diversity in terms of adding women to the industry, so we developed a Scholarship Program to assist women. We accomplished this by earmarking money specifically to assist women. Remember not that many years ago, ladies in the workforce accounted for about 11% of the workforce. This year, we are showing at least 22% (double the number ). I think we did some good here.
7) We transitioned the strategy of the organization from having a focus on Certifications to being focused on serving the membership. I see much of this still happening and wonder what the go forward strategy for the organization is.
😎 We commissioned the first workforce study.
9) we fought to provide options when it came to the board Ballot and not presenting the exact number of candidates.
I am not saying that we or I did everything right but nor am not trying to distract from anything that any other board has done or will do, I am just pointing to things that I worked on whilst I was on the board as you seem to specifically call me out due to tenure. I am also not implying that I did this by myself. This work was done in conjunction with folks like William H. Murray, Pat Myers, the late Hal Tipton, Doug Andre, Bruce Murphy, Ben Gaddy, Flemming Faber, the late Jim Wade, Jim Duffy, John Colley, Richard Nealon, Freddy Tan, Mervin Pearce, Corey Schou (to only name a few...mia culpa to those I did not list).
As per the By-Laws, I have not been on the board more than six years in the last ten. I have been off the board for four years.
I have a track record for completing projects. So be it that I was on the board for two years or twenty, I think the questions that need to be asked are "Does she bring value to the organization?" and "Will she bring value if elected?" along with "Does the candidate have the bandwidth to really add value?'
As Richard has pointed out, "I do not tolerate under performance" and have dealt with that both at work and on the board. Every board members (all 13) needs to pull their weight and if they are not, they need to sit on their hands and keep their mouths quiet.
I threw my hat in the ring as a mere member, as I am experiencing the pain that the general membership feel in terms of lack of member support, people becoming certified that should not be, portals that continually do not work (as an example, I cannot see the Congress web site (I have two computers, five different browser and an iPhone and can't get to the web page for Congress) to see who is speaking, what hotel it is at.....and this only one example. If I get locked out of the Community, I cannot log in unless I use a hack....... Daily we see notes from people complaining about access, non response,missing CPEs, the rise in the AMFs......As I carry five certifications, I was hit with a bill for $770 US (so almost a $1000 Cdn and had to decide which of my certs to let lapse.
Also, it was suggested that someone from the Community should step up. I would support anyone else on the Community that would like to run. And last but not least, there was NOT one woman listed on the ballot and for five slots, there are only eight people presented as options.
Independent Candidate for the (ISC)2 Board Ballot.
I for one love to hear the facts on board accomplishments and seeing a clear vision on the direction of (ISC)2 beyond 2020. I'm less interested in the politics and rule changing around tenure and have a disdain for nepotism and cronyism, which this thread clearly admits to and that is bad news for the membership. I have high hopes that Chapter Leaders should run for the Board in a democratic way. Remove the constitutional/Bylaw barriers and bring democracy forward.
Greg Thompson here. Board Member, Vice Chair, and Co-Chair of the Nominations committee. I'm not really sure where to start regarding this thread, as there's a ton to unpack.
Firstly - thanks to those of you who have thoughtfully expressed your views on this forum. Ironically, it's why it was created - to give members a stronger voice - I think it's working.
With respect to "Board accomplishments" that's a tough one to answer because frankly it's not the board who should take credit for the success of the organization. Our role as board members is to govern and to ensure the CEO's vision and strategies align with the mission and values of the organization. I can say very confidently that the organization has matured considerably over the past 6-8 years. With this organizational maturation, the Board has also evolved, from a "managing" board which Diana was part of, to a "governing" board.
As a non-profit, we want to see prudent investments in maintaining/expanding/managing our certifications. We want to see a relentless pursuit of member value - don't forget, we are members too and many of us had similar perceptions about the Board before we stepped forward to volunteer our time and our talent to the organization and to our fellow members.
I think our CEO in his annual report has articulated the many initiatives that have been undertaken to modernize the organization's aging infrastructure, to look for creative ways to provide value to our global membership and to steward the organization toward continued growth and relevance.
Regarding the nominations process, it's very well laid out on the (ISC)2 elections page - https://www.isc2.org/About/Board-of-Directors/Board-Elections.
Regarding the perception of nepotism or cronyism, for those who know me personally, they would know how much this goes against my core values. I am truly disappointed that this is what is being perceived as it could not be further from reality and I am trying very hard to not be offended by the notion.
The slate selection process for 2019 was perhaps the most comprehensive of any. There were approximately 40 potential candidates put forward, and there were several indeed which came from the chapter organizations. After going through our scoring process (which is based on the criteria listed on the elections page linked above) we identified the top 12 candidates. This year we took the extra step of interviewing all 12 candidates which allowed us to bring the slate to our target number of 8 top candidates.
Diana and "Tricky Dicky" know very well that there's a ton of effort to get things to where there are right now regarding the slate and the background processes - that missing context can sometimes betray us.
As far as the vision for the organization beyond 2020, I'll defer to CEO David Shearer, but I urge you to have a read of the 2018 annual report which can be found here: https://www.isc2.org/About/Leadership.
I'll close by saying that I am in the home stretch on my final term on the Board and I'm proud to have been able to serve. I'm proud of the growth of our profession. I'm proud to have worked with many amazing people on the board and within the management team at (ISC)2 (you know who you are). I am proud to be a CISSP and to have contributed to an incredible organization.
I wish good luck to all candidates, whether selected by the Nominations committee or selected via petition.
All The Best!
> gthompson (Newcomer I) posted a new reply in Member Support on 06-24-2019 04:27
> Greg Thompson here. Board Member, Vice Chair, and Co-Chair of the Nominations
> committee. I'm not really sure where to start regarding this thread, as there's
> a ton to unpack. Firstly - thanks to those of you who have thoughtfully
> expressed your views on this forum. Ironically, it's why it was created - to
> give members a stronger voice - I think it's working.
Well, given the number of former (and a few current) BoD members responding, you may very well be right. This is the most reaction I've seen from HQ in almost 20 years. So, as much as I despise the "socmed" aspects of the "community," it may be working--provided someone at HQ actual listens to what is being said here, overall ...
@gthompson Great to get your input Greg and give us the insight into this year's nominations process.
I agree with almost everything that you've said with just one exception.
1. Board accomplishments - My view is that one of the roles of a not-for-profit board (and more so, for a membership body), is to set strategy. I see management's role (no less important) as delivering the on the strategy. Therefore, it should be easy to call out board accomplishments, as they should be able to tie back to strategy implementation.
I don't think it's healthy for an organisation that represents a membership body for management to have responsibility for forming the strategy that it's then going to implement. In my opinion, that doesn't serve the members well. Much as I admire and trust David (Shearer) and respect all that he has done (and continues to do) for the organisation, I would have liked to see the vision for the future of the organization being developed by the Board, and articulated by the Board Chair in the Annual Report.
It's fabulous to get your insight into this years nominations process, and I'm thrilled that you had such a broad range of candidates to consider. I'm well aware of the work that's involved in selecting, assessing and scoring candidates. Interviewing the 12 top scoring candidates was fantastic.
It's a shame though, given all of that effort, that the slate still appears so polarized (although I personally disagree with quotas). I have a query in with management about one candidates eligibility to run (and the brief appearance of an alternative name to that candidate on the slate), but feel assured that, given the great amount of detail that the committee went through, that query will be resolved quickly.
Many thanks for adding more context to the debate,