cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
mencik
Contributor III

Upcoming Annual Meeting and By-Laws proposals

I noted the following Blog entry, https://blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/2022/10/proposed-amendments-to-isc2-bylaws-member-vote-opens-soon.ht...

 

1) Why was a notice not sent to all members regarding the annual meeting?

 

2) Why was nothing posted on the isc2.org main website or in these Community forums?

 

3) Why were the proposed By-Laws amendments not shared with the membership for their comment prior to finalization by the Board?

 

4) Why does the Board not trust the Members to provide oversight of the Board? The new proposals eliminate any voting on Board members (only one candidate per slot), eliminates write-in votes, and raises petition threshold from 500 (already hard to obtain) to 1% of membership (about 1500 right now). 

 

5) Why is the Ethics Committee being eliminated? Perhaps because the elimination of Board oversight is unethical?

6) Why are Standing Committee now explicitly consisting of Directors only?

7) Why was the petition threshold raised? Without the ability to send a message to all members anymore, meeting 500 has been impossible to obtain. Why not just eliminate petitions completely instead of providing a false sense of transparency?

I have many more questions, but I'm sure others do too, so they can respond below. I don't want to steal all the thunder.

30 Replies
tmekelburg1
Community Champion

It's a shame we can't vote on some of the bylaws separately because I do like some of the updates, but I can't vote FOR because the main issue I have is the BoD picking one person for each open position. If it could be changed to two, I could get over the other issues I have.

mencik
Contributor III


@tmekelburg1 wrote:

It's a shame we can't vote on some of the bylaws separately because I do like some of the updates


That is why the changes I am proposing having been broken into 9 separate proposals. First the ones the Board has proposed must be voted down, and enough petitions submitted to get a special meeting to vote on mine.

wimremes
Contributor II


@mencik wrote:

@tmekelburg1 wrote:

It's a shame we can't vote on some of the bylaws separately because I do like some of the updates


That is why the changes I am proposing having been broken into 9 separate proposals. First the ones the Board has proposed must be voted down, and enough petitions submitted to get a special meeting to vote on mine.


While I appreciate the effort and the changes are very well described, I think it is not timely. The petition will only get them on the board's agenda, most likely in an executive session that will not be disclosed. There is no viable path to get them seriously considered by the board with the current board. With the current momentum, we have other options that are first steps towards Bylaws changes.



Sic semper tyrannis.
mencik
Contributor III


@wimremes wrote:

@mencik wrote:

@tmekelburg1 wrote:

It's a shame we can't vote on some of the bylaws separately because I do like some of the updates


That is why the changes I am proposing having been broken into 9 separate proposals. First the ones the Board has proposed must be voted down, and enough petitions submitted to get a special meeting to vote on mine.


While I appreciate the effort and the changes are very well described, I think it is not timely. The petition will only get them on the board's agenda, most likely in an executive session that will not be disclosed. There is no viable path to get them seriously considered by the board with the current board. With the current momentum, we have other options that are first steps towards Bylaws changes.


Not true. 500 or more petitions calling for a special meeting to vote on the proposals requires the Chair to call such a special meeting. That is exactly what this petition does. 

onemoreplant
Viewer III

My goodness, there are so many issues with these bylaws updates, thanks for posting about it and providing a good summary. As mentioned earlier, I suppose the BOD has achieved member engagement, I'm here when I've never really engaged before. I'm definitely voting NO on this and spreading the word.

 

If there is any petitions that need signatures of members, you can add my name. How will we be notified if this happens so we can add our names? I've never done that before, and I don't see any info on that in the bylaws, did I miss it?

mencik
Contributor III

After we vote down these by-laws proposals, we have an alternate set of changes that will increase transparency and oversight. There is a petition for these at http://jsweb.net/isc2

 

Please review and sign the petition.

There will also be a write-in campaign for alternate Board members. Watch for details when voting starts on November 1st.

JoePete
Contributor III


@tmekelburg1 wrote:

It's a shame we can't vote on some of the bylaws separately because I do like some of the updates, but I can't vote FOR because the main issue I have is the BoD picking one person for each open position. If it could be changed to two, I could get over the other issues I have.


What you mention here is commonly known as "division of the question" - an incidental motion (meaning it is always in order) under every form of parliamentary procedure known in the free world. Our current bylaws (and even the en masse replacement the board has proposed) requires an in-person meeting - Note Article VI paragraphs 5-7 and Article X - So the only thing I can figure out is the (ISC)2 moved corporate headquarters into a cannabis dispensary and the board and management are suffering from a contact high.

DHerrmann
Contributor I

I consider this vote essential to continue ISC(2)'s ability to survive. Only a "NO" vote will allow OUR organization to continue to operate as an ethical, focused, member-focused body. A "yes" vote moves ISC(2) to a cliff without an ethics board, limited member participation, and what I see is a move to become a for-profit entity.
DHerrmann
Contributor I

Why? I think it's obvious. It seems like a takeover.

I don't think it's a hostile takeover, but they're obviously taking ISC(2) away from the members and transforming into what seems to be a pay-to-play, certificate granting, "for profit" company.

When I see those ads saying "No experience necessary CISSP certification", you know we're in deep, deep trouble as an organization. I still say "we" because, at least for now.

Best case, this will be a great example of the law of unintended consequences. Worst case - that's up to us all to determine for ourselves.

petersmaze
Viewer II

I guess the board's position is that the current bylaws are so bad, we just need something completely new. Of course, it was those bylaws that put them into office and have empowered them. That creates a bit of a Catch-22, doesn't it?
vidmate.app
stream videos