(ISC)2 Board of Directors election

[TrickyDicky]

So according to the timeline at https://www.isc2.org/About/Board-of-Directors/Board-Elections the current Board's list of preferred candidates in this years election (the 2019 Slate) should have been announced on 14th June. I don't see anything on the news or the blog pages on the website, and I haven't received any email notification yet. 

Does anyone have insight into when the Slate will be announced?

It would seem that the election won't be held on time either (12th Sept) as the bylaws state that there must be 90 days between the announcement of the Slate and the election

[AppDefects]

@amandavanceISC2 why is this discussion being suppressed from showing on the forum boards for "Hot Topics" and "Latest Topics" ?

[dcontesti]

---

@jjx wrote:

Diana, you just admitted to very poor professional behavior. Not sure why the mic drop...

I was appalled when I heard about this the first time; I couldn't (didn't?) believe it. I frankly assumed it was exaggerated and not quite like it was described, but you just confirmed it.

Wow.

---

I don't think unprofessional behaviour but definitely poor judgement on my part.

Besides this was the only place to sit.

I do find it odd that as one of only two people that have selected to go the petition route, that I am being called unprofessional, and in some ways a liar.

Sad

[TrickyDicky]

---

Wim, I'm going to let you have the last word. Just letting you know I won't be responding to your reply, because I'm taking too much time out defending, you're taking too much time out attacking; and everyone else is taking too much time out reading and responding. So unless it's a new point, and not a personal attack - I'm out!

---

@wimremes wrote:

---

@TrickyDicky wrote:

@wimremes wrote: facts aren't ad hominem

When you call someone a liar Wim, it's best to be able to back it up 

> I do not feel that your current "platform" is truthful, based on my most recent experience with the ISC2 board, and my experience with you.

---

yeah, 

not an issue at all, Richard.

• Open communications between the board and members​
  As I previously stated, Diana-Lynn was the primary enforcer of the "The Board Speaks With One Voice" policy, effectively silencing individuals on the board. You've referenced this policy yourself in your reply to JJs post so it is very clear that transparency and engagement with the membership is not part of the platform.
• I don't think that One Voice is necessarily a bad thing. I makes sure that there's a consistent approach by the Board as a whole, and doesn't present the opportunity to damage the reputation of the organisation by getting involved in personal issues. 
• In the past couple of years communications in my jurisdiction has been pretty crap. The Chapter is closed, the EMEA advisory Board is gone, the EMEA Congress is gone, there's only one EMEA summit this year (used be every couple of weeks).
• The only opportunity that I'm aware that I had to interact with anyone from either the Board or Management this year was to travel to The Hague or travel to London (on one of two dates).  
• Ensure the Membership are getting real value for their Maintenance Fees (AMFs) through knowledge bases, CPE opportunities (not just thinks like PERKS, continue to develop courses that the membership want and need.
  The org has committed $10M just last year to develop content through the Professional Development Institute. That's not "just thinks like PERKS" (sic). What more are you gonna do to create value?
• "Exclusive Member Perks Benefit offering over 302,000 discounts that can be used every day."
• "Regional Member Perks programs offering a wide array of business and personal savings" - You know what? Member Perks (no sic) aren't available to me (or about 30% of the membership) because I don't live in a country that offers them. 
• I wish David and the Management Team success with the PDI courses. I did try to take one and had to abandon because of glitches on the platform (which couldn't be replicated by Member Services), and I will go back as the platform stabilizes
• Closely monitor costs 
  The org has a strong history of managing costs extremely well. The ability to commit $10M to developing content for the PDI is a testament to that. You might not realize it, Richard, but I vividly remember a discussion we had about how a NFP should manage their investments. We talked about a photographer that decided to travel the world with their spouse. That conversation has steered my actions as chair and hopefully, through that direction, will continue to improve how the org creates value for its membership. Again the question is, what MORE will Diana-Lynn do?
• See the response on PDI above
• I remember the conversation well. It was about Charles Handy the management consultant (https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-handy-life-1.1068408). Sadly, I believe Elizabeth passed away last year.  I'm not sure though, how this relates to value that Diana will bring in terms of cost management
• Continue to develop an out reach program to younger folk, ladies and employers (Diversity)
  Ow Yeah! This is actually a program run under the Center for Cyber Safety and Education. A seperate non-profit that ISC2 can not put more money in without running afoul with the IRS. Let's put the membership at risk as extra value? 
• I don't think Diana ever mentioned increasing funding to the Centre. Diversity can always be promoted in everything the organisation does, from Board elections right down to Chapter opportunities and regional outreach. I spoke to a young lady from Belgium last year who runs a cybersecurity training programme for disadvantaged women. She was promoting SSCP to get them on the certification ladder and make them more employable. We were charging them full cost to sit the exam. (small things like that maybe?) 
• Work with the Board and Management to ensure that the membership understand their benefits
  No need to work there. David and his team should understand that message. I've personally sent him emails on that. Also, the board doesn't WORK on that. They measure management's performance based on metrics such as Net Promoter Score and the chair sets goals with the CEO to ensure their focus is right. If the board stays on its governance plane, there is no work that can be done.
• Perhaps all is good now. Diana hasn't been involved for 4 years. Seems a reasonable goal  
• Work with  the Board, Management, Members, Advisory Boards (where they exist) to provide a range of certificates that cover specialized areas of security.  Better differentiation for certificate holders
  Again, not how this works. Certifications and certificates (subtle difference, not the place to explain that difference here at length. Certificates are not subject to ANSI's elaborate accreditation scheme.) are created, maintained, and sunsetted by management. Factually, the only committee involved in that process is the Scheme Committee, which is a management committee (co-chaired by a board member). The management team proposes new certifications/certificates for creation and/or sunsetting to the board which, based on a thorough market analysis (we have to thank Allison Miller for bringing her product management knowledge in and developing this process), approves or refuses the budget tied to the proposal. 
•  Exactly, Diana has had much success leading the Scheme committee in the past. Perhaps she sees a need for something different?

So here we are ... anything I missed?

As Columbo used say, "Just one more thing"  -  I don't see is where the lies are!

---

---

[jjx]

@AppDefects 

The board puts out a call for nominations, currently limited just due to volume but actively working on ways to expand so ALL members can nominate (hopefully soon). A few years ago, ONLY the current board members could nominate, and frequently there were times where the slate presented only had the same # candidates as slots, and some times it was N+1. Meaning the board at times presented 4 candidates on the slate for 4 open slots, which allowed them to control the process. This fact was hidden for a long time. I (and others) thought this was a terrible practice, and we changed it quickly.

So, fast forward, currently here's who could nominate in 2019:

- Current Board Members

- Past Board Members (from prior 3 years)

- Regional Managing Directors (to get more nominees outside U.S.)

- Advisory Council Members (to expand reach and diversity)

- Management (again to expand reach including other geographies)

- Chapters * (select number of high-performing chapters)

The Nominations Committee does not have a hard rule it must follow for # of candidates on the slate. The goals are a) to have *every* candidate on the slate be a solid member with correct skills/experience, so any of them elected would bring member value, and b) to have N+2 or N*1.5 candidates, so if there are 4 slots open, we aim for ~6 on the slate, or in this case 5 slots open, there are 8 on the slate. So the board is not forcing any candidates by having N=N.

It's not perfect, but it's much better than what was in place before. I realize what the board does it not always visible, but I think we're all happy to be very transparent in the process now. Again this was not the case 5+ years ago so I'm kind of surprised the processes now are being questioned and attacked by Diana; I feel like we're working towards a better structure for the organization and membership. And they did not try to improve or mature the nomination process while they were on the board and had that opportunity.

NOTE on petition

The bylaws used to state a petition must include a % of membership (I think 1%?) to make it on the ballot; the board has elected to REDUCE that number to 500 to make it more manageable for members and open it up further. If you look at the facts, I think people will see that as the board matures over time, we're doing a lot of things to make the board more open, more accessible.

Hope this helps!

[jjx]

You listed a lot of tactical things that are not of board purview. As you said, when you started serving on the board, it was a managing board, and now it is no longer such.

Also, I'm surprised you're not aware of the AMF re-structure which gives you ONE price annually per member, regardless of the number of certifications. You were on the NAR Advisory Council during all/most/some of the time you were not on the board, meaning you had direct access to the CEO and quite a bit of information.

Did you take that information you had access to on the council and start using it to help or communicate with members?

[jjx]

@dcontesti 

Just to assuage some concerns voiced here, would you be willing to list out your years of service on the board?

I'm sure we can get that info with a request but you will have it more readily available.

[gthompson]

Thanks JJ - It's also important to note that in our planning, we were very aware of the traditionally low voter turnout. We all have tried to increase member participation, but when so few cast votes, the result for a large slate is results which are very watered down. There's no mal-intent with setting any number, nor is there mal-intent with slate composition. As the co-chair of the Nominations committee this year, I can say confidently that we have acted in an honorable way, with the best intent to serve our membership. This isn't to say that there aren't any lessons to be learned from this, on many fronts.  Diversity in all of its forms are important, especially as our membership grows. I'd like to hear from members their ideas - this after all is what this forum is designed for - to collaborate and share ideas for the greater good... Cheers all!

Greg Thompson

[AlecTrevelyan]

Usually the lack of voters indicates not only just apathy, but actually that things aren't bad and therefore don't need changing. In effect, you can view the low voting percentage as a form of approval for what the Board and Leadership team are doing.

People generally vote in greater numbers when they feel that a change is required because things are bad. Therefore, I would imagine that the percentage of voters will increase this year just purely as they look to vote against the current shambolic state of ISC2's systems, and, yes, you can include their mass mailer in that blanket statement - along with the member portal, CPE portal, endorsement system, exam pass notification system, certification package mailing system, community login page, community badge system, and PDI system, all of which are non-functional.

What I find amusing is that Board members past and present are coming on here, LinkedIn and Twitter to talk about something which they know the vast majority of members don't care about (95% apparently), yet we get radio silence on the functionality of the systems which is something all members, except those on the Board and Leadership team, seem to care about - go figure!

[denbesten]

---

@wimremes wrote:

---

...fill a slate with 150%. Five open seats means (rounded up) 8 slate candidates for 2019...

I appreciate the explanation.  That is what I meant by "magic".

... THAT EXTREMELY FEW MEMBERS CARE ENOUGH TO VOTE??

---

Is it truly a case of "care enough" or might there be other factors?  For example, I often will not select any candidates for a particular office if I don't "know enough" about any of the candidates.  My theory being that if I can not offer an informed option, I ought to abstain.  In city/state/country elections, I leave the ballot item empty, but since board elections are a single issue, I likely would not even submit a ballot.

The primary way to get members into the polling-booth is for them to feel that they are part of decision and not just offering their approval for something preordained.  Just off the top of my head, here are a few ideas:

1. Add "issues" the ballot.  For example, questions about switching AMFs from arrears to advance, deciding on a significant investment in professional-development, discontinuing certificates, "constitutional amendments", etc. 
2. Develop/post voters guides (example) containing the candidates response to various questions that will elicit answers that are distinguishing yet comparable.  All named candidates on the ballot should be included in the guide, even if just to note that they did not return a response.
3. Introduce and webcast a "meet the candidates" panel at Security Congress, much like the political debates (example, example).  Perhaps even offer a "contribute to the profession" CPE to attendees/viewers.
4. Develop a more fine-grained approach to how the board presents its endorsement (example).
5. A petition candidate brings with them 500 likely-voters. Therefore, petition candidates should be actively encouraged and aggressively supported.  For example develop a low-drag way of collecting "signatures" and include links to their petitions on the "board elections" page.
6. Help the members understand the importance/value of the board.  For example, evangelize the board's role, their accomplishments, significant decisions and the goals they are setting for the organization.

[TrickyDicky]

@jjx JJ, you really need to be accurate/factual in this argument and not rely on supposition or hearsay

---

> A few years ago, which Diana and Richard (TrickyDicky) were on the board, ONLY the current board members could nominate,
This is untrue. As I've already stated, current Board members, past board members, and Fellows could all nominate. All advisory committees were co-chaired by a board member, so these were always consulted (and many Board members and candidates came from this source). Management, on some occasions would suggest someone who they would have encountered as a volunteer (e.g. test development, speaker, etc) for consideration .

> frequently there were times where the slate presented only had the same # candidates as slots,
This was before my time and when elected, I continually took a stance against it until it changed

> This fact was hidden for a long time.
Can't be hidden. Board always announces the Slate to all of the membership

> I (and others) thought this was a terrible practice, and we changed it quickly.

I'm assuming I'm included in "others". As I remember, we did work together on at least one Nominations Committee

> So, fast forward, currently here's who could nominate in 2019:

- Current Board Members

- Past Board Members (from prior 3 years)

- Regional Managing Directors (to get more nominees outside U.S.)

- Advisory Council Members (to expand reach and diversity)

- Management (again to expand reach including other geographies)

- Chapters * (select number of high-performing chapters)

Fellows are also allowed nominate.

There is no EMEA Advisory council anymore.

I've never seen or spoken, or been contacted by the EMEA Managing Director.

There is no local Chapter.

I haven't seen anyone from either Management or the Board at any security event or conference in my country for the past two years. 

So other than being a previous board member, how am I supposed to nominate anyone to the Board

> but I think we're all happy to be very transparent in the process now. Again this was not the case 5+ years ago so I'm kind of surprised the processes now are being questioned and attacked

Give me a break. You quoted out of date figures to me recently to back up an argument against diversity. What about this years figures - the one's that matter

> And they certainly did not try to improve or mature the nomination process while they were on the board and had that opportunity.

Moral high ground? The process had been greatly improved before your time (particularly under the stewardship of Dan Houser - clear criteria and scoring)

> The bylaws used to state a petition must include a % of membership (I think 1%?) to make it on the ballot; the board has elected to REDUCE that number to 500 to make it more manageable for members and open it up further. If you look at the facts, I think people will see that as the board matures over time, we're doing a lot of things to make the board more open, more accessible.

Again, had been amended by motion before your time

---