Over on the CSI Community Forum, Dave Stutzman asked members “What is the CSI Value Proposition?” It’s worth reading if you haven’t seen it yet.
I was able to get one of my posts through the gate-keeper today for the first time in months. Maybe things are looking up. Here’s what I said on Dave’s thread:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dave-
Thanks for starting this conversation. It inspired me to do an informal anecdotal evidence survey of the CSI members attending this week’s SCIP Conference (…we missed seeing you here, by the way)
In my discussions with CSI member specifiers at SCIP, probably 50 or so of them, the sentiments aligned with those expressed here. There was maybe a wider variance due to the larger sample size; some chapters and some regions are much better than others in fostering member engagement, some are merely adequate, and a few are lacking in this area. But what was almost universally expressed: members are questioning the value of CSI at the Institute level. Many are considering dropping their CSI memberships, or have already quit the organization. The controversy over the Dynamic Standards fiasco was often mentioned as a factor in the decision, but most are fed up with what they perceive is the board’s lack of response to their questions and concerns. “Lack of transparency” seems to be a common concern.
I also spoke with the manufacturers and product representatives who sponsored the SCIP event. I got around to 40+/- of 53 exhibitors. As you know they have tabletops at the back of the meeting room and members have opportunities to engage with them one-on-one at several intervals during the course of the three days. I asked each of them only one part of your question: “Tell me what your company sees as the value proposition of CSI at the Institute level.” The answers were alarming. Many of them, both small and large manufacturers, are considering or already have dropped their support for CSI. One of them said: “We’re done. No more corporate sponsorships, no more tables at the product shows, no more MSR. There are better ways to spend our money.”
This was a huge player in the building products arena. They aren’t the only one, and there will be more. Our board needs to address this issue on our behalf because we can’t afford to lose the support of our industry partners.
Enemies Lists:
The administration of Richard Nixon compiled an Enemies List. It did not originate as a formal document, but rather as a series of memos and political targeting efforts aimed at people viewed as hostile to Nixon and his cronies. The list was used not merely to identify and respond to political criticism, but to retaliate against perceived opponents through the abuse of federal power, notably tax audits and regulatory pressure. The scandal became public during the Watergate investigations with the release of a memo from White House counsel John Dean titled Dealing with Our Political Enemies.
Nixons enemies list is infamous because the public became aware he was using state power personally and in retaliation against dissent. It was one of several governance malfeasances that lead to Nixon being forced out of office. The phrase enemies list became generic shorthand for governments or organizations categorizing critics as adversaries rather than participants in legitimate debate.
For a modern-day hypothetical example of the use of an enemies list, imagine an institution led by a highly centralized and secretive leadership team. Public criticism begins appearing from insiders, current or former members, customers, or independent experts. Instead of treating criticism as part of normal accountability, leadership informally starts categorizing certain individuals as problem people or other such pejorative terms. Evidence of an enemies list might be inferred from:
restricting access to meetings or information
enforcing rules selectively and inconsistently
excluding from advisory groups or speaking opportunities
coordinating reputational attacks
monitoring social media activity of critics
rewarding loyalty while isolating dissenters
encouraging supporters to view critics as disloyal rather than merely disagreeing
In our modern-day hypothetical example, concern would arise whenever the institutional governance and management mechanisms that are supposed to serve everyone begin functioning as tools for factional control or retaliation. The lasting lesson from the Nixon example is that healthy institutions generally tolerate criticism, even harsh criticism, with accountability and positive action to correct the situation being criticized. When leadership starts defining critics themselves as threats to the institution, accountability structures degenerate quickly and the institutions themselves collapse.