(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

[TrickyDicky]

@MikeGlassman wrote:

> I too have not received anything yet.

Mike (and anyone else who didn't receive email on 14th), I've been informed by (ISC)2 management that the email blast was sent to all members, and they suggest that I contact Member Services to log the issue.  I suggest that anyone else who didn't receive it should email their issue to membersupport@isc2.org

[dcontesti]

---

@AppDefects wrote:

Only 498 more kudo's to go! That counts right;)

---

Sorry Kudos wont do it.  According to "the powers that be", I need an email with your name, email address on file with the organization and your cert. no.

Thanks

d

[rslade]

> dcontesti (Community Champion) posted a new reply in Member Support on
> 06-20-2019 09:09 PM in the (ISC)² Community :

> Okay folks, I have decided to throw my name in the hat and try to get on the
> ballot as an independent.

Second the motion!

I am not Diana-Lynn Contesti, but I support this message!


>   Open communications between the board and members

Well, she was a member before, and wasn't particularly vocal during that time.
BUT, since then she has become much more communicative, so I have high hopes.

> 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.

Sounds good.

>  We brought members the (ISC)² Chapter organization, something folks have been
> asking for over a long period of time

And it's pretty good.

> I have the time to
> devote to being active on the board (an average Board member should spend no
> less than ten hours a week working on committees, projects, reading reports,
> etc.

Important to be realistic.


>    In order to be considered,
> I need the support of no less than 500 members who are in good standing (as of
> June 14th, 2019) before July 13th, 2019.  Please send me an email supporting my
> petition to  dlcboardpetition@gmail.com and please include the following
> information:   - your email address as recorded with (ISC)²    - your member
> (certificate) number   Thanks for your consideration and yes I will answer all
> emails.

That could be a lot of emails ...

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the
other alternatives. - Abba Eban
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

[Shannon]

---

@dcontesti wrote:

---

---

Sorry Kudos wont do it.  According to "the powers that be", I need an email with your name, email address on file with the organization and your cert. no.

---

I was just about to Kudo your post, but then I sent the email instead.     Good luck!

[rslade]

> Shannon (Community Champion) posted a new reply in Member Support on 06-21-2019

>     @dcontesti wrote: Sorry Kudos wont do it.  According to "the powers
> that be", I need an email with your name, email address on file with the
> organization and your cert. no.   I was just about to Kudo your post, but then
> I sent the email instead.

It's not "either/or," you know. You can do both.

(I did 🙂

====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@computercrime.org
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.
- Lilly Tomlin
victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm http://twitter.com/rslade
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/
https://is.gd/RotlWB

[AlecTrevelyan]

---

@dcontesti wrote:

---

---

Sorry Kudos wont do it.  According to "the powers that be", I need an email with your name, email address on file with the organization and your cert. no.

Thanks

d

---

You've got my vote - email sent! 

[dcontesti]

---

@TrickyDicky wrote:

@dcontesti wrote:

> Okay folks, I have decided to throw my name in the hat and try to get on the ballot as an independent.

I'm absolutely delighted to hear that Diana. I was privileged to serve on the Strategy Committee when you chaired it, and was thrilled when you led the charge on changing the culture of the organisation from being focused on "Certification and Education" to being focused on "Serving the Membership and Society". 

Those are qualities of true vision and leadership.

---

Trickdicky

Thank you so much for your kind words.  However this could never have been done without folks like you, Doug Andre, Freddy Tan, Dorsey Morrow (to name only a few).

d

[wimremes]

---

@TrickyDicky wrote:

Mike, if you look at Alec's post below you'll see the names.  Lots of familiar names there (Zachary and Arthur seeking re-election, David seeking to come back on the board from previous tenure, Aloysius who was also on the slate last year, Yiannis who co-chaired the EMEA advisory council (when there was one)) and some new ones.  I'll be interested in seeing what each of them see themselves bringing to the board in terms of their vision and strategy. 

Edit: It's worth remembering that there have been two appointments this year by the current board (one of them being the excellent Dr Charest, who I was disappointed didn't get reelected last year). If five of the board's Slate nominees are elected in the September elections, then the sitting Board will have seven of it's chosen individuals elected or appointed in the space of the year. That's more than HALF of the board! (IMHO, too much influence by one sitting body) 

If there are any members who are eligible, and are willing to put in the work required over a three year period, then I'd encourage them to run as independent candidates in the election, and provide some choice for the membership.  

---

I think this post falsely assumes that the board picks and chooses who to put on the slate randomly. The fact is that the board receives a host of nominations through various channels (management, the board, previous board members, advisory councils, chapters, ...). Those individuals are scored based on a number of criteria, including board experience, organizational leadership, experience in non-profit organizations, volunteerism, etc. etc. by the nomination committee. The top candidates are put forward for approval by the whole board.

Alluding that the board practices are nepotistic is intellectually dishonest. If there ever was an (ISC)2 board that wasn't in it for themselves, it surely is the 2019 board. I was lucky to serve with many of them in 2018 and I have no reason to not trust them. This group is composed of 13 individuals with no ulterior agenda, broad experience and representation both geographically and professionally, and a good mix of visions.

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.

All current slate candidates, including the ones you chose to personally call out, bring more to the table than "being the board's friends". They're members like you and me that decided to dedicate 3 years of their time to an organization that deserves good leadership.

[TrickyDicky]

Wim, 

Thanks for joining in on the discussion. 

I just wanted to clarify a couple of points that you may have misunderstood.  I don't want to appear defensive here, or get into a rant, but some of the language that you've used needs to be responded to:

Wim wrote:  "The fact is that the board receives a host of nominations through various channels (management, the board, previous board members, advisory councils, chapters, ...)."

Richard had written on Tuesday last:

"the Board, past members of the Board, Fellows of the organisation, and Board Award recipients can all nominate.  What's supposed to happen is that the Board are supposed to ask various committees, advisory groups (where they exist), etc. for nominations."

Wim wrote: "Those individuals are scored based on a number of criteria, including board experience, organizational leadership, experience in non-profit organizations, volunteerism, etc. etc. by the nomination committee. The top candidates are put forward for approval by the whole board."

Richard had written on Tuesday last:"They then (through the Nominating Committee), assign criteria and weighting to each candidate and score them. Effectively the 6 to 8 highest scoring candidates go on the slate with the approval of the Board as a whole. "

So far, I think we're both in agreement.

Wim wrote:  "Alluding that the board practices are nepotistic is intellectually dishonest."

Don't think I ever said that in relation to board practices.  What I did say, was that Board slate selection is somewhat nepotistic. Realistically, how many candidates are generally proposed by Advisory Councils (incidentally many of which are now disbanded), former board members, fellows or award winners? 

Since I've stepped off the board, nobody from the Nominating Committee has ever reached out to me to ask me for a nomination. It's always been my initiative to nominate - for Board, Awards, etc. (and that's only because I'm familiar with the timelines). 

Realistically what happens is, that certain individuals on the Board (the most committed) nominate a bunch of people that they know, so that there will be at least some choice going into the nominating committee. You can tie almost everybody on the board slate this year (and every other year - I'm not having a go at the current board) through association, back to a sitting board member.  

It's something that I think Business Practices should address. While it's always been an issue, it's become more so since we changed the Bylaws, resulting in a faster turnaround of Board members.

Wim wrote: "This group is composed of 13 individuals with no ulterior agenda, broad experience and representation both geographically and professionally"

I never disputed any of that.  However, the current board slate (the consensus choice of the board) is made up of 5 candidates from the US, and is made up entirely of men. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that 6 US men would join the board this year (Dr Charest being appointed earlier). It might be more difficult to make the same statement next year (at least in relation to gender and geography).

Wim wrote: "Why the membership would put forward a candidate that already served for 15 years (or more?)" 

I don't claim to represent all of the membership, but some of the reasons why I'd support a certain candidate: 

1. Experience of leadership

2. Little tolerance for underperformance

3. Bandwidth to work - and evidence of past achievements 

4. Other skills (e.g. commerce & accountancy)

5. Meets ByLaws requirements having been off the board for more than 4 years 

Wim wrote: "and simultaneously complain about board members seeking a second term is frankly beyond me."

Did I miss something? I'm a big fan of second terms. I think that you can get so much achieved (through gained experience, knowledge, and acquired skill) in a second term. 

Wim wrote:  "All current slate candidates, including the ones you chose to personally call out, bring more to the table than "being the board's friends". They're members like you and me that decided to dedicate 3 years of their time to an organization that deserves good leadership."

Fully agree. I only call out the few that I know and/or recognise. However, I think the organisation deserves great leadership, and that's the reason I'm lending my support to Diana-Lynn Contesti in her attempt to have her name placed on the ballot (and provide the membership with greater choice in the election).

I will (as I regard it to be my duty) vote in the Board election (whether or not Diana gets the required 500 names to place her on the ballot), and I wish best of luck to all the candidates in their endeavor to serve.

Thanks again for joining the conversation. I think the debate is useful (especially from the perspective of our experience) 

R 

[AlecTrevelyan]

@wimremes - I'll leave @TrickyDicky to respond to you if he wants, but I just wanted to give you my perspective on some of the points you made in your post...

I've previously never been interested in the board elections so don't know who is on the current board, or who any of these people running for election are, or their history with the organisation. I also don't know what any of their relationships with each other are, or whether or not there are any nepotistic / cronyistic practices going on. To be frank, I don't really care about any of this.

The only reason I am interested now is due to the current state of things post "digital transformation", which in my view is so poor it's affecting the credibility of the organisation - and that is something I do care about very strongly.

I have invested significant time, effort and money in passing five of ISC2's exams and plan on studying for another later this year. If the organisation I have chosen to provide me with the credentials I use to promote my own capabilities and ultimately help me earn a living loses its credibility, their certifications lose credibility, and then I lose credibility potentially putting my standard of living in danger.

Everyone has been shouting from the rooftops on here and every other ISC2 related forum across the Internet that there is a huge problem at the moment, but the view from the top is that everything is rosy and the digital transformation has been a resounding success:

Seemingly David Shearer was not aware of the numerous issues currently plaguing the membership, but I did bring some to his attention in this thread and invited him to spend some time reading up on the some of the others, so I know those at the top are not naive to the issues anymore - ignorance should never be an excuse anyway.

As such, the lack of any progress with the wider problems experienced by all members, along with the serious lack of communication on what the plan is to resolve things, makes it seem like those at the top are just burying their heads in the sand.

Therefore, for me, trying to get a Community member elected is about showing that us lowly members do have a voice, that we should not be ignored, that the problems should not be skated over, that the membership expects better, and ultimately that we as a Community have the power to do something about it.

Maybe it won't work out this time. Maybe it will. Either way it's a first step.

EDIT: seems @TrickyDicky did respond just before I posted!