@wimremes wrote:
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.
Respectfully
Diana Contesti
Independent Candidate for the (ISC)2 Board Ballot.
