July 1 marked the start of CSI’s fiscal year. I hope my colleagues have had a chance to read and reflect upon William Sundquist’s valedictory address upon the conclusion of his eventful term of office as board chair, and Jarrod Mann’s inaugural message as board chair, posted the next day, which laid out in broad strokes his plan for his term. They deserve our thanks for their past and continuing service to CSI.
Jarrod’s message came across as carefully crafted, well-intentioned, and sincere. Undoubtedly, he believes he struck the right rhetorical tone and produced satisfactory responses that addressed the major issues raised by membership. Unfortunately, to many of us, the language used, while creating the appearance of engagement, did not substantively address CSI’s existential crisis. If you compare the board chair’s message with the body of dialog by members in this forum and others, the disconnect is startling. It is as if the board and the members are talking past each other, instead of communicating with each other.
The fact that there is such a massive disconnect between what the membership is saying and what the board is hearing proves, per se, that there has been a fundamental failure in policy governance at CSI. I sent an email to each board member prior to their June 27 meeting. Here’s a summary of some of the key points and there is a link to the complete text of the email at the bottom for those who want to read further.
- Under Carver Policy Governance, the members of nonprofits are the moral owners of the organization. The board derives authority from membership and governs on membership’s behalf, translating the wishes of the members into organizational performance.
- When members express widespread surprise, confusion, anger, distrust, and disillusionment over major strategic initiatives, that indicates the board has failed to maintain a trustworthy linkage (effective communication) with membership.
- Members raised legitimate questions about the development of Crosswalk, Dynamic Standards, and CIN: whether risk assessments and market studies were realistic; whether stakeholder sentiment and market demand were properly assessed; whether executive leadership has been practicing effective management and prudent stewardship of CSI assets.
- I urged the board members to begin the new fiscal year first by undertaking an honest, transparent, and comprehensive inquiry into the decisions, assumptions, expenditures, communications, and governance processes that led to the present controversy, then by making the appropriate changes to get us back on course.
Membership’s wholesale loss of confidence in executive management is a critical governance matter requiring immediate and decisive board action to return CSI to a member-centered professional institute whose board understands that its authority flows from the membership and whose accountability flows back to that membership.
[Full letter: The Great Metropolis of the Mississippi River Valley: CSI Governance and Loss of Membership Trust ]
1 Like
Thanks for the commentary, @George_Everding. I thought the message from Jarrod, now as Board Chair, was quite milquetoast. There did not seem to be a firm commitment to a specific path forward. With all the public concerns from members, I hoped for something more definitive that would give reason for hope.
1 Like
The plan is clearly to just post through it, hoping membership will eventually tire of controversy and give up.
JG
1 Like
@George_Everding I applaud your persistence and your attempt to get the CSI Board to do something to respond to the growing member turmoil.
I was upset at first. I lost sleep over wondering what could be done to restore confidence in our member organization. For months, CSI was the last thing I thought of at night and the first thoughts of every morning. Conversations with neighborhood friends always included discussion of CSI. Finally I realized, while I am still concerned, I cannot allow CSI to control my thoughts and life. I have other priorities like my business, friends, and family.
Only two days into this week and I have already heard from several CSI members expressing disappointment and wonder about the organization collapse. They are looking for alternatives. This publicly silent majority will likely determine the fate of the organization as the CSI Board disengages from the members.
Perhaps that is the plan - transform CSI into an organization without members. Is that course already set?
[not cross posted to CSI Forum. Let them wonder where the conversation is happening.]
2 Likes
I will suggest again that members seeking an organizational alternate to CSI should consider IIBEC. it is a growing, healthy organization that listens to members and has a strong ethical core.
while it doesn’t have a focused specification component, an understanding of the importance of good specs to good project outcomes is inherent in the organization’s outlook.
I know many professionals with dual IIBEC and CSI membership, and similar to CSI, all AEC professionals are welcome, designers, architects, engineers, contractors, and product reps/manufacturers.
1 Like
IIBEC may be a good choice. I am sure there are others. Certainly SCIP.com is an alternative for specifiers. Those that are architects could resort to AIA. And there are the contractor associations AGC and ABC. Those would provide a different perspective for the design community.
My hope is that this Forum serves a purpose as a home for the design and construction community. Colin Gilboy started the 4specs forum more than 20 years ago. There is great content here and friendships have been built here - purely from participation.
I am looking into how to allow this forum community to engage with everyone even more. Aside from posts, this platform allows direct chats. I believe it also allow video conferencing as part of posts. Capability investigation continues…
Let me know your suggestions to make 4specs Forum the design and construction community.
1 Like
The big problem is that there is no other construction-related organization that I know of as wide ranging as the CSI.
I have always favored the CSI as a professional organization because it represents all members of the construction team. At a CSI meeting different members of the construction community can discuss problems with each other amicably. You don’t have Architects meeting in one place complaining to each other about unreasonable clients and contractors who keep pestering them with RFIs, General Contractors meeting in another place complaining about arbitrary architects and subcontractors who never show up on time, subcontractors meeting in a third place complaining about GCs who are slow to pay them, etc.
I just hope the board will keep the CSI from self-destructing.
2 Likes
Paul, welcome to the community and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am glad you are here.