I stand corrected.
I’m guessing, by implication, that you have no problem with my statements about CSI’s former ownership of the CSI Show or the Institute building.
Scott,
I re-read the posts above.
First, I sincerely hope you are being compensated for you PR work.
Second, the most common thread is “HOW MUCH?” No one seems to know. (on this board, and un-returned phone calls to institute) As members of the organization into which we pay dues, we are (I hate this word, but it fits) ENTITLED to know what our dues is being used for. Unless BSD Owners donated the company or another private group bought and donated it, in which case it is none of our business.
Forgive me, Mr./Ms. Unregistered Guest, if I take your assertions about my naivete’ and dark conspiracies among the CSI Board members with a grain of salt.
I can’t imagine they are very concerned with anonymous postings here; I can see that it was a mistake for me to even attempt addressing them.
Your mileage may vary.
Scott: No problem about show or building ownership. Just trying to keep the facts straight about SPECTEXT ownership.
Unregistered Guest: I do not see any board member that has participated in the postings above. Yes, some may be monitoring.
To those of you who have questions that you actually want a response to, I would suggest as Anne has said, contact a board member or go to forum sites where board members are responding to questions on this issue:
CSI LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=242065119&gid=706547&type=news&item=242065119&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecsinet%2Eorg%2Fbsdpr&urlhash=X8cT
CSI Forums: http://new.csinet.org/csi_services/forums.aspx?ForumID=51&TopicID=1283
It is always good advice to ask questions of others in the same manner that you would like questions addressed to you. You are much more likely to received a responsive answer when you do so.
My laugh of the day yesterday -
unregistered guests with strong opinions talking about transparency and accountability!!!
To be fair, the unregistered guest issue may simply be a problem with 4specs than any deliberate ommission. The login creditentials are no longer persistent, when they used to be.
How much does the website cost? how much does it cost to have a board meeting? what’s the monthly rent at the office cost? do you acutally think a business can operate if it has to ask its’ shareholders every time it makes a decision? Even if you were asked, what makes you think you are in a better position to decide what to do? The terms of many business agreements are confidential, that’s life.
Sigh.
Unregistered Guest 01:43 pm: “Compensated for your PR work”? - as if I am not allowed an opinion of my own.
To borrow a phrase from my kids, LOL.
I definitely NOT getting paid to tolerate condescension and backhanded insult from anonymous cranks on the Internet, so there’s no reason to respond to anything else you say.
Have a nice day! 
Why don’t you ask the “how much” question on one of the CSI forums listed above where board members are participating? I think you will find that the answer to that question is that it is confidential which would be true for most any organization for that type of purchase.
A better question might be to ask where did the funds come from. I think you will find that the answer is that the funds did not come out of the operating budget just as the major purchase of a vehicle or real estate would not usually come out of a family’s operating budget, but rather from savings or investment funds. In other words, the purchase would not affect current operating programs nor operating revenue including dues. Funds from the investment funds would basically be a change from an existing investment(s) to an investment in BSD. The question to be answered in the future is how well the investment in BSD did in comparison to other investments from a financial point of view. How well the purchase did in light of the other reasons for the acquisition would be the additional questions.
Another question that could be asked on the other forums is to confirm that the acquisition will not have any adverse effect on current or future opeating budgets (operating programs or dues) of the Institute.
Scott,
I appreciate your thoughtful, cool-headed, and deliberate responses on this thread.
Thank you and if we have not met before (I’m terrible with names and I can’t say that I recognize you from your picture), I hope to have that pleasure at an upcoming convention.
Lynn
It is my observation that when a member organization becomes too dependent on some funding source, not member dues, there is a tendency to make decisions on how they impact the funding source and not on how they benefit the interests and needs of their membership.
Scott,
First, I am 1:43 and forgot to log on before I posted. At this point, I am too embarrassed to sign on, so I won’t. Second, that first point was more of a totally backfired smartass comment. MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES, it was, and is not my intention to insult you or anyone on this forum.
Finally, my post was sent before I saw the link’s on other posts. These other links have been very helpful. I have, still and will ask the question “how much”. I believe that as members we do have the right to know if we totally funded, loaned or outright gave the money to make this purchase. As was pointed out, there is the better way to ask the question, “where did the funds come from, and if it was membership, are these funds to be paid back.”
Again, my sincerest apologies to all, especially Scott. I hope to meet you in the future, if I do, I will introduce myself as 1:43 and apologize in person.
Based on past experience, the Institute Board is almost certainly reading this thread.
Thank you, Ann. I look forward to meeting you as well.
Thank you, also, “Unregistered Guest”; your clarification is most welcome and your apology gratefully accepted.
Text is a fine medium for conveying technical information, but a poor one for interpersonal communication between people who don’t already know each other - no body language, facial expressions or other nonverbal cues.
Add to that the asynchronous nature of forum postings and it’s very easy for this kind of misunderstanding to occur.
The civility I generally experience here is quite refreshing.
Ooops. I should say, “Thank you, Lynn.”
I think I just proved my own point. 
Mark,
Your observation is brilliant! It never occurred to me but you may be right on track. To paraphrase you, Institute may shift focus from fulfilling the needs of the membership to the profitability of BSD.
Does it strike any one else as curious[?] that there is so much angst and skepticism [just on this thread, not to speak throughout the membership] on this issue?
Seems to me the “powers” best take heed of this! There is a lot of mad in the world today, and situations like this, though rather inconsequential [except to members]still can and should be avoided. They are bothersome!
This is an organization dedicated [???] to bettering communications-- uuuhhhhhh!!! Does that exclude members?
I posted the following earlier today under theInstitute topic:
I was quite pleased to read the announcement that CSI had acquired BSD and the various software systems they have produced over the years. Of particular importance is BSDs specification software SpecLink. When I started my specification consulting firm around 20 years ago, as a member of CSI, I decided purchasing SpecText was the correct and appropriate thing to do. You know, support the organization where my money was going. What a mistake that was. SpecText was of little use and certainly not helpful in gaining knowledge of construction component or systems. AIAs MasterSpec had it beat hands down. But now, things have changed. Over the past 4 years or so, I have watched AIA attempt to reduce the huge gap between MasterSpec and SpecLink in the software side of commercial specification products. Granted, MasterSpec is a far better product than it has ever been, but in my opinion, SpecLink still is the leader in specification software.
The big unanswered question for me, and the one that the CSI president told me would never be answered, is just how much of our dues was used to acquire BSD? No doubt it is a large number. But I wonder if it goes beyond hundreds of thousands into the millions. In my 25 years as a CSI member, this is yet another example with both the CSI national organization and my local CSI chapter: lack of openness. My perception of CSI as a good old boy organization may never change.
I have lurked for the past several days to watch the traffic on this thread. I will say right up front that I am a long-time MasterSpec user. I have tried SpecLink a couple of times and have found it wanting in areas that I consider important which is why I have remained a MasterSpec subscriber. I do believe, however, that SpecLink has important strengths which are the reasons for it having a significant share of this market.
I have said for a number of years that what CSI has been good at is not “creating knowledge” but creating the structures to organize knowledge; e.g., MasterFormat and SectionFormat. CSI has essentially created the structure that allows BSD to create a database product for specifications. CSI’s activities supporting OmniClass will, in my view, be more strategically important to BIM than whatever BSD is up to.
I am conflicted about the issue of transparency of CSI’s Board of Director. I recognize that there are issues requiring board action which must remain confidential, particularly those having to do with personnel. I am not sure that this is one of them. I have no problem with CSI forming “strategic alliances” (or whatever you want to call it) with any number of organizations whose organizations contribute to the success of the mission of CSI. I do have a problem with CSI putting money down on a single company when there doesn’t seem to be that much money to begin with. The cost of this acquisition cannot be hidden from the membership indifinitely because year-end financials should force disclosure. It this is not the case, then CSI has other problems.
In my view, CSI’s membership deserves concrete responses to the following concerns:
(1) What benefit does the rank and file CSI member get from this? Are the benefits immediate, tangible, and significant (and I do not consider a 10 percent discount to be significant)? Or are they of a more strategic and intangible nature. Would CSI members receive these benefits without the Institute purchasing BSD?
(2) Who has assessed the quality of BSD’s software with respect to current and future design practice and found it to merit purchase? And why does it merit purchase?
(3) Aside from benefits to members, what is the return on CSI’s purchase of BSD, both on a tangible, financial level (return on investment) and on a strategic level. It is easy to see (although not quatifiable) what BSD get out of this transactionm but what about CSI and CSI’s membership? The return on a strategic level is more understandible, but in fact more appropriate for someone like AutoDesk. Will CSI get a share of each year’s profits (a dividend) each quarter or each year? Or will CSI hold on to its investment, earning a return when the investment is sold somewhere down the line? In either case, the investment seems to be risky from a financial perspective.
(4) Finally, I would really like to know who has a dog in this fight. I will admit that this may be somewhat irrelevant, but it becomes relevant if one or more individuals gets financial renumeration.
Without further information, I intend to take the position that CSI’s Executive Committee and Board of Directors have acted in the best interest of CSI’s membership and of the Institute. I do, however, expect more information specifically related to my concerns to become available over the next several months.
How do the other specification software companies feel about this acquisition? I would like to hear from the Arcom management team or specifiers that help review MasterSpec documents. How about SpecText?