Why STC members should vote "No" on the referendum to eliminate the regional election of Director-sponsors from STC Bylaws

By Joe Welinske, President of WritersUA

This document is of interest to anyone holding membership in the Society for Technical Communication. The current Board of Directors has added a referendum to the upcoming annual vote that would delete the Director-sponsor role from the Society Bylaws.

Article IV, Section 5 of the Bylaws currently states: "The Society is divided into eight regions; each region includes all chapters, members-at-large, and other affiliations that exist in that region. Those members assigned to a region elect one director who represents that region."

I believe that removing this section from the Bylaws will be extremely disruptive to the organization and will leave the 150 Chapters of our Society without adequate representation to the Board. The decision to have a vote on removing this section of the Bylaws was made unilaterally by the Board without any formal discussion with the many hundreds of Chapter officers. It is necessary for our membership to make it known through our No vote on the referendum that this is not acceptable and that the Director-sponsor role is necessary for adequate Chapter representation on the Board.

At a time when our profession is facing numerous challenges, the Board needs more oversight, not less and the Chapters need more guidance, not less. The Director-sponsors provide (or should be providing) a number of extremely important roles that cannot be easily replaced. You need look no further than the "Guidelines for Director-Sponsors" published by STC to understand how important this job is:

"As a director-sponsor, you are a vital communication link in the Society. Taking an overall view of the needs and interests of the chapters in your region, you become the 'voice' of those chapters."

"A director-sponsor plays a key role in promoting the overall objectives of the Society and in making sure that chapters operate and maintain themselves in accordance with those objectives."

"The guidance director-sponsors give to chapters is crucial to the growth and enhancement of the Society; however, director-sponsor activities do not conflict with or duplicate the duties of Society committees."

The Director-sponsors are our society's equivalent of the Senators of the United States. They help manage and nurture specific constituencies while advocating for those constituencies in dealings with the international leadership. The Director-sponsors were originally added to our Society heirarchy specifically to provide a much needed voice for the Chapters. As it stands now, the Director-sponsor of your region represents you and has a vote on the Board to support you and your region's agenda. Removing the existing Director-sponsor role effectively removes your vote on the Board. Eliminating the regional advocacy of the Director-sponsors would be like disassociating the U.S. Senators from their states and having them be assigned tasks by the President. That simply doesn't provide adequate representation for you and your fellow members.

One of the arguments put forth by STC President Andrea Ames for eliminating the Director-sponsors is that they only represent the "geographic" communities and not the online SIGs. My response to that is to increase the scope of the Director-sponsors so that both geographic and virtual communities are represented. Rather than removing important voices for the geographic communities, add SIGs to those existing voices. Many members have told me that the SIGs are badly in need of adequate funding. An international office that is scrambling for funds is not necessarily going to be the best advocate for funding the SIGs. However, Director-sponsors assigned to specific SIGs can provide the needed care and advocacy for these growing virtual communities.

Note that the text of Section 5 does not mention geography. SIGs could be added today to the responsibility of Director-sponsors with no change to the bylaws. For example, the Director-sponsor of Region 7 could continue to support the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Rim countries while adding the responsibility for three SIGs. As additional communities are identified, they can be integrated into this existing structure. If Director-sponsors end up with too large a work load, the President could appoint deputy-sponsors to help shoulder the load.

The Bylaws could even be amended to add MORE Director-sponsors in the same way that adding new States to the U.S. requires an increase in the number of Senators. Two new Regions could be created to take over representation for Chapters in Europe and Asia. Another Region could be created to manage all SIGs. Many professional societies have dozens of Directors. The bylaws of IEEE allow for 50! In the case of IEEE, they have Directors elected by the full membership, Directors elected by geographical regions, and Directors elected by Divisions (their equivalent of our SIGs.)

With respect to the current regional assignment of Director-sponsors, it is disingenuous of our STC President to discount the importance of geography. Note the following responsibilities of the Director-sponsor as outlined in the Guidelines document referenced above:

Visit as many chapters as possible during the first year of your term because many problems that develop can be better solved by having firsthand knowledge of how the chapter operates.

Encourage the chapters in your region and others to exchange newsletters, problems, solutions, and so forth with other chapters.

Take an active role in convening regional activities and ensuring that chapter leadership training is provided as part of regional events.

These are all extremely important activities and they are all much more easily enabled by geographic proximity. A Sacramento-based regional director can comfortably reach six Region 8 chapters with a relatively short drive. Being in the same or adjacent time zones also makes a difference when you are conducting email and phone discussions. And whether you want to recognize it or not, regional sensibilities do exist and fitting in with them makes it more comfortable for everyone when trying to get things done.

Regarding the third bulleted item concerning "regional activities," the appearance of robust regional conferences has been one of the greatest improvements in STC over the past several years. These conferences offer a much more economical alternative to the annual conference for many of our members. These regional events are only made possible by a tight working relationship between chapters. Director-sponsors have been a key to making this happen effectively.

President Ames has stated that having each member vote for each of the eight Director positions is "more democratic." That's simply ridiculous. Congresses and Parliaments are widely used throughout the world in private organizations, public institutions, and most democratic governments. In the Ames model, each member will have to analyze all the candidates for all eight Director slots. This could be as many as twenty or thirty people. Compare that to the current process where the members of each region need only evaluate two or three people, many of whom may already be familiar to us due to regional activities. Personally I would rather carefully choose one Region 7 Director and trust my fellow members in the other regions to do the same due diligence.

A final argument put forth by the Board to justify eliminating the Director-sponsor role is that there may be a fiduciary conflict. This justification should not be used unless written legal opinions are solicited from qualified attorneys and offered up for review by our membership.

In closing, the "transformation process" that is underway is going to have a significant impact on how your Chapter is run and quite possibly whether it will survive the next few years. This is a time when personal contact and in-person visits to chapter meetings by Director-sponsors is more important than ever. This is a time when specific advocacy is critical for all communities–geographic, virtual, or otherwise. This is a time when you need dedicated Director-sponsors willing to support their charge as your voice on the Board. If there have been problems with the execution of the Director-sponsor role, I suggest we fix the problems rather than eliminate this important elected position. I submit that this referendum should not even have come up for a vote without vetting it at a public, in-depth symposium (not a conference call) attended by chapter officers, Director-sponsors, and international officers.

Absent this advised consent, I would ask you to please vote Against the referendum item to eliminate the regional election of Director-sponsors from STC Bylaws. Chapter and SIG Presidents, I would ask you to advise your members to read this article.

PostScript

Subsequent to posting this article, the following email notes were sent and received. In addition to what you see here, I received many notes of support from chapter officers who were not comfortable with posting their personal view. I received no negative comments from non-Board members.

To: STC Director-Sponsors

I'm writing this note to all eight STC Director-sponsors as a concerned member of our Society. You are obviously aware that for the upcoming STC general election the Board has planned to include a referendum that eliminates the role of the Director-sponsor. I believe that this action is wholly unnecessary and avoidable. As a Director-sponsor you are the elected advocate of your region and serve as the de facto representative vote for your region on Board matters. If there have been problems with the execution of the Director-sponsor role, I suggest we fix the problems rather than eliminate this important elected position. I have been contacted by two current Board members and two Director-sponsor candidates who have reservations about the proposed referendum.

* It is true that some Director-sponsors have not done a good job in the past. Then let us vet our candidates more throughly and train our Director-sponsors better.
* It is true that the Director-sponsor role is an enormous amount of work. All the more reason to not eliminate it. Members of the Leadership Community can be appointed to act as deputy sponsors to assist with tasks.
* It is true that SIGs or other communities are not covered under the DS role. They should be. Responsibility for specific SIGS can easily be added to Regions. The Bylaws do not specify that regions need to be geographic at all.
* If there are fiduciary issues related to the Director-sponsor role, at least two legal opinions should be solicited and made available to the general membeship prior to a referendum.

The position of Director-sponsor was added to our Bylaws over twenty years ago specifically because chapters did not feel they had sufficient representation on the Board. This is not a position that should be dispensed with lightly. And under the current Bylaws, the Chapters *are* your main responsibility. You were elected by the members of your region. In the document "The Guidelines for Director Sponsors" no less than thirteen of your nineteen duties specifically deal with chapters.

I ask you,
Have you had a detailed discussion with each of your chapter presidents regarding the effects of this referendum?
Have you exhaustively questioned why your position needs to be eliminated rather than improved and repaired?

At a minimum I would suggest there needs to be a detailed and active symposium (not a conference call) between chapter officers, Director-sponsors, and the international leadership BEFORE this referendum is placed on the ballot. In the absence of such a discussion, I would ask that you recommend to your region to vote No on the referendum. This referendum can be added to the ballot next year if a detailed and open discussion among members indicates this is an appropriate action. There is no need to rush ahead with this vote.

I have written an article describing the situation and my views and posted it on the WritersUA web site. I encourage you to read it and make your regional membership aware that there is a contrary view, shared by many of our colleagues, to the proposed referendum.
http://www.winwriters.com/articles/trans2/index.html
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Thank you, Joe Welinske

To: STC Chapter Presidents

I'm writing this note to STC Chapter presidents as a concerned member of our Society.
For the upcoming STC general election the Board has planned to include a referendum that eliminates the role of the Director-sponsor. I believe that this action is wholly unnecessary and avoidable. The Director-sponsors are the elected advocates of the regions and serve as our de facto representative vote on Board matters. If there have been problems with the execution of the Director-sponsor role, I suggest we fix the problems rather than eliminate this important elected position.

At a minimum there needs to be a detailed and active symposium (not a conference call) between chapter officers, Director-sponsors, and the international leadership BEFORE this referendum is placed on the ballot. In the absence of such a discussion, I would ask that you recommend to your members to vote No on the resolution.

I have written an article describing the situation and my views and posted it on the WritersUA web site. I encourage you to read it and make your regional membership aware that there is a contrary view, shared by many of our colleagues, to the proposed referendum.
http://www.winwriters.com/articles/trans2/index.html
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Thank you, Joe Welinske

From: De Murr, President, San Fernando Valley Chapter

Joe --

I agree with your recommendation.

Without a formal, acknowledged mentoring and sponsoring role at the Board level, many new chapters and SIGs would fail. I think it is especially important in this transition phase in the redefinition of local organizational units that the sponsorship role be highlighted and drawn upon. Without this key role, this vision of new communities may not succeed.

Additionally, what we are voting for is a bylaws change. Our bylaws define and call out the sponsorship role as key component of relationship between the board and the chapters (now communities). Having this function carried out by an appointee of the president potentially undermines the role. And, certainly, removes it from a preeminent role.

Thank you for voicing your opinion and taking this action.

From Glenn Sanders, President, Mid-South Chapter

Thank you for advocating on behalf of director sponsors and the chapters they serve. In my role as chapter president, I've found our director sponsor, Beth Tanner, to be VERY helpful and active this year as we navigated through the Transformation, nominated chapter members for awards, began the rechartering process, and explored ways to increase member value. I'm not sure where I'd be without her support.

From Jeff Randolph, President, Orange County Chapter

The Director-Sponsor provides an invaluable function for the chapter and the relationship among chapters. Were it not for the interdiction and mentoring provided by Lance Gelein 13 years ago, Orange County STC might not exist today. As recently as 2004, our current Director-Sponsor Beau Cain helped resolve a serious regional situation. Different regions have different concerns, issues, and so forth.

STC President Andrea Ames's logic in her Jan. 2005 Intercom article was flawed when she wrote that the chapters were "largely autonomous," thus obviating the need for a director-sponsor. Articles III and IX of the STC Bylaws define who we are as individual members and who we are as chapters (or communities). We are not allowed to charge dues and any conflicts are resolved in favor of how the STC Board views the situation (for example, we cannot re-define who a student member is to accommodate who actual students are in our geographic area).

The STC Board controls Article III and IX, and they can change whatever they want and whenever they want. They can change who we are as individual members and how we are defined as communities, taking into account or ignoring our input as they deem expedient (e.g., the STC Board's recent redefinition of Student Member has serious revenue implications for the Society and the "regular chapters", not to mention as a future membership stream). There is nothing stopping the STC Board from adding SIGs or some other community definition. Article IX is the power base for the STC Board and illustrates that the STC Board has the ultimate power over the members AND THE COMMUNITIES: "If a chapter acts in a way not in the best interests of the Society, the Board may...withhold dues or take any other actions deemed proper..." (Art. IX, Sec. 3.C).

Finally, the Article in question, Article IV, establishes the concept of a region--and the fact there are eight such regions--but does not define the size or scope of those regions. This provides great flexibility for the STC Board to change the definitions of and chapter/SIG/community assignments to the regions [and by implication the Director-Sponsors] as needed.

While the STC Board relies on Article IX for power, we MEMBERS have power in Article I ("The power of STC resides with the members. ..."). Andrea stated that "in order for the transformation to go forward" we need to vote in favor of this. This implies that the upcoming vote is a referendum on the Transformation as it is now. We have no other avenues at our disposal to express our opposition and have the opposition FELT. We can't recall the Board, we can only vote to Disapprove. If we have the power to "Just Say NO!" we need to do so. Failing that, under Article VII, we might need to get a Special Meeting called at the STC Conference (half of the chapters would need to request such a meeting and present our grievances to the STC Board).

Kit Brown, Associate Fellow, Program Manager, Snake River Chapter

Hi Joe--

Excellent article and great points. Thanks for caring enough and having the wherewithal to say what a lot of us are thinking, and just haven't taken the time to express. The article is cogent, timely, and well-written, as well as speaking to a core issue facing STC--lack of discussion and transparency into board decisions. (While the Board is working very hard and really trying, they still don't get that the core issue is lack of and poor communication with the members, which over the years, has bred a lack of trust in what the board is doing. Ironic that we are communication professionals...)

Like you, I see no reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (to coin a cliche). The Director-Sponsors are the only contact most members have with the international organization. To eliminate that position without having an alternative or fixing the core problem, would be a death knell to the Society.

One reason that most members don't vote is that they are completely clueless as to who the board members are, and what the international Board is doing. We leaders in the Society want to help change that, but we can't do much if the Board doesn't communicate and discuss things with us. I like the idea of the DS position having assistants from the chapter and SIG leadership, and I've never understood why so much of the Board leadership feels that they have to DO everything themselves. There are many many people in the Society who would love to help effect change and to help them communicate with the membership. Delegation is one of the key components of being an effective leader....

Thanks again, Joe!

Jack Molisani, Past-President, LA STC Past-President, OC STC Chair, Year 2000 Region 7 / Region 8 Pan-Pacific Conference Special Events Chair, Anaheim Annual Conference

Please vote against against removing Director-Sponsor representation by region.

As a three-term chapter president, I can say first hand that what is needed is more regional representation and coordination, not less.

If the current D-S's are not adequately representing their regions as has been stated, the solution is to better train the D-S's to do what is needed and wanted by the members in their region, not to do away with regional representation!

Incredible as it may seem, the members across the Society have voiced their opposition to this and other initiatives for months, yet the Board dismisses opposing views are dismissed without consideration�let alone printed in Intercom or on the ballot so you, the individual member, can make an informed choice.

Please vote against against removing Director-Sponsor representation by region, and vote for Paula Berger as income 2nd Vice President.

The Transformation needs to reflect the needs and wants of you, the membership of the Society, not the hobby horses of a select few on the Board.

Joe Welinske is the president of WritersUA, formerly known as WinWriters. WritersUA is a company devoted to providing training and information for user assistance professionals. Joe has been involved with software documentation development since 1984. Together with Scott Boggan and David Farkas, Joe authored two editions of the popular and pioneering book Developing Online Help for Windows. He has also taught online Help courses at the University of Washington and UC Santa Cruz. Joe received a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1981, and a M.S. in Adult Instructional Management from Loyola University in 1987.

Personal Note: I'm sad to say that subsequent to my first posting of this article, certain members of the STC Board are suggesting that my involvement in this issue is for personal profit; that I am using it as a promotional business tool. I would respond that the many members who really know me will tell you that I am a passionate supporter of the technical communication profession and the ideals our Society stands for. I began my career as a technical writer in my first job after graduating college in the early 1980s. For the first five years of my career my employer would not pay for the yearly Society dues. For the next four years I was a fledgling independent contractor and could not afford the yearly Society dues. But throughout that time, I treasured the value of my local Chicago chapter. I would make sure that each month, somehow, I had the ten or twelve bucks I needed to pay for an evening of wonderfully collegial networking and tremendously helpful technical presentations.

I continue to treasure the experiences that that local Chapter added to my professional development. Now, as a fairly comfortable and well-known member of our profession, one of my greatest joys is visiting chapters around the country to share my love of our profession and to promote software user assistance. I've visited over three dozen chapters across all eight regions. While there is certainly a business aspect to my chapter visits, my hosts can attest that I never require any fee or even compensation for travel expenses. To me, the person-to-person experiences are the main reason I started going to STC events in the first place and continue to be the main reason I enjoy membership today. I look forward to talking shop with you whenever I end up in your town for a chapter meeting!
Joe
P.S. I'm not ashamed to call myself a technical writer.