There should be 3 different ballot questions. If bundled there is a pretty good risk that whole thing sinks/stalls.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. The IIBEC Board will be making a final decision in the coming days regarding the structure of the ballot before the election begins. Your feedback is helpful and will be considered as part of that process. — IIBEC Executive Committee
I concur with Raymond that there should be different ballot questions, as I support some of the proposed bylaw changes. However, I have concerns about allowing voting rights to all credentialled members. My first reaction was to outright reject the change that will adversely impact the Institute. Upon further reflection, allowing the Quality Assurance Observer (QAO) category voting rights may make sense, as these professionals are deemed to be third party independent observers not working for manufacturers or contractors (Industry members). If IIBEC considers removing the proposed wording change to bylaws, that of allowing credentialled industry members eligibility to vote (See Article 15, Section 3. Industry Members, item B), I would consider supporting this move. There is a major difference in membership within IIBEC between industry and the profession when it comes to members’ representation and we need to keep that difference when it comes to voting on issues / election of Officers. For example, Industry members promote their products and services, and Officers who run for election should not have to curry favor / lobby industry members to support them (removes perceived conflicts of interest). This is only one example…
Thank you for your comment. The Board of Directors understands the concern you are expressing about perceived conflicts of interest and about maintaining an appropriate distinction among member categories within IIBEC. The intent of the proposed change is not to blur those distinctions, but to recognize that credentialed members have demonstrated a meaningful level of professional commitment to the profession and the organization. Earning an IIBEC credential reflects professional investment, accountability, and engagement, and the proposal recognizes that commitment by affording those members with credentials the opportunity to participate in the IIBEC elections and governance process. We recognize that members will have different views on this issue, and that is exactly why comments like yours are valuable as part of the amendment process.
Thank you for your reply Stephanie, on behalf of the Board of Directors. Your answer outlines the arguments used already in the webinar presentation, but does not address my request for a change to the proposed bylaw wording. I understand that a motion to amend proposed bylaw changes cannot be made under this process and will need to consider not supporting this motion as presented.
Thanks Stephanie. As chair of the Governance Task Force, I want to add that our work was initiated and guided by member input gathered through surveys and in-person focus groups, where questions of representation, engagement, and member participation were explored as part of the broader governance review process. Because this discussion was grounded in member feedback, it would be especially helpful to hear directly from members who expressed support during that process. If you were among those who shared views in the surveys or focus groups about expanding voting rights, I would encourage you to contribute to this forum discussion and explain why you felt that inclusion was important to the association’s governance.
I too am concerned about the changes to voting eligibility and the impact upon the credibility and independence of the IIBEC brand and its credentials. Credentials do in fact indicate an investment as Stephanie mentioned, however objectivity and independence are the other two legs of the IIBEC stool. Industry taking the initiative of educating themselves shows the importance of knowledge and validates the concept of our association and its entire education wing; however, bestowing voting powers upon industry members who also have credentials does a disservice not only to IIBEC, but to the industry as a whole. We have worked for decades to improve the reputation of, initially the roofing industry, but now the entire enclosure industry. Relaxing our requirements that have served the association so well for so long would be seen by the industry as a backwards step in our goal of the pursuit of excellence and independence.
Remo, thanks for sharing your perspective, as a member of IIBEC, I appreciate the long-term lens you’re bringing to this, especially when it comes to protecting IIBEC’s reputation for objectivity, independence, and technical credibility. Speaking personally, I agree that each of those qualities are critical for IIBEC. At the same time, I don’t believe that one’s ability to be independent and objective is defined solely by member classification. Any of us can face pressures that challenge us to maintain those qualities but I believe that they are reinforced through our Code of Ethics, our governance structure, and the standards we expect of one another. When we participate in IIBEC, we’re expected to uphold and protect the standards and reputation that define the association. In my view, extending voting eligibility to credentialed members recognizes the commitment those individuals have already made. Regardless of category, I would suggest that they value IIBEC’s reputation just as much as Consultant members do and are equally committed to maintaining its integrity and credibility.
I agree that there should be 3 different ballot questions. Two of those questions are quite necessry and improvements. The third, I believe, puts our organization the Interenational Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants IIBEC at RISK. Not all registrants are “Consultants”, they sell and install products and are registrants with qualification concerning our Code of Ethics. That should give pause to anyone currently allowed to vote. Based on voter turn out there is strong chance that with some “politicing” the majority vote will not be by Consultants as the organization is established and has without this modification stands represent. I have been through at least two of these Governance Change presentations, and I apprcieate the hard work of some volunteers and leaders. However, I believe even they should give pause to potentially having a majority vote not just based on number of Consultants versus Credentialed members, but much more importantly voter turn out.
I appreciate the efforts of everyone involved with this initiative; it is clear that many of you have spent countless hours (unpaid) to advance the influence of IIBEC and its members…..and for that, we all say THANK YOU! I find myself falling on the side of those who commented previously suggesting the modifications be voted individually. This approach allows me (and others) to pick and choose which amendments I feel would provide the greatest benefit to the organization. Regardless of the outcome, I want to reiterate my sincere appreciation for the commitment of all involved.
“Credentials do in fact indicate an investment as Stephanie mentioned, however objectivity and independence are the other two legs of the IIBEC stool.” As respectfully as possible, relying on the Code of Ethics, governance structure and shared standards to maintain integrity is wishful thinking. I have personal experience of not reporting ethical concerns due to retaliation and know several colleagues that did not speak up when they should have. A separate issue all together but indicative of how the Code of Ethics only works if members participate.
I strongly object to extending voting rights to non-Consultant members. In my view IIBEC is not, and should not, be about “advancing the building enclosure profession” as a whole. IIBEC’s mission is “to advance the profession of building enclosure consulting”, with “consulting” being the critical word. There’s nothing wrong with an organization to promote the whole industry, but that’s not IIBEC. IIBEC should be about trying to raise the awareness and professional stature of enclosure *consultants* to a level on par with (or beyond!) architects and engineers. Introducing a blatant conflict of interest into the organization’s governance seriously undermines that mission. And you can’t say that there’s no conflict of interest. One may have the best intentions, and even act 100% beyond reproach, but that’s not how conflict of interest works. Just the existence of a potential conflict is the problem. IIBEC has worked hard since its inception to promote its consultants as being independent 3rd parties; we should not change that now. I have great respect for my contractor and manufacturer colleagues, and continually advocate with my clients to involve them early and often in our projects. I’m glad to have them involved in IIBEC. But this is not about “recognizing commitment”… it’s about how to best serve professional enclosure consultants. Encoding conflict of interest in our bylaws doesn’t serve us. You can’t sell roofing and also be an independent consultant at the same time, regardless of the letters after your name. You have to choose. I urge members to vote against the proposed expansion of voting rights.
On the administrative changes, I want to point out that the proposed edits to Article 22 would make future changes to bylaws much more difficult to enact. Currently changes can be made by a 2/3 majority of *submitted ballots*. The change would require 2/3 of *all eligible voters*. Making this change at the same time as the proposed major change to voting rights does not make sense to me. An “in the know” majority could vote to enact these changes and thereby make it much more difficult to make future changes, which would require major “get out the vote” efforts to gather the 2/3 of total voters (rather than just 2/3 of ballot casters). I’d much rather see a vote on the change to the amendment mechanism (Article 22) first. Then once that’s settled hold an up or down vote on voting rights.
After a review by IIBEC’s outside general counsel, her response was — “This provision does not require that 2/3 of the entire membership. Pursuant to NC law, any membership action taken outside of a meeting (through a ballot), requires quorum to participate and then the same voting threshold had the vote been done at a meeting. So this provision is saying that you need at least 10% of the voting membership to submit a ballot and then 2/3 of that number to pass the action.” — IIBEC Board of Directors
Thank you to those volunteers have spent their valuable time working on this. I agree with the prior comments that the Bylaw changes should be voted on as three separate items so members can consider each change independently. Of particular concern is the ability of credentialed industry members to become voting members. We all appreciate their contributions to IIBEC, both for being sponsors and a source for information. However, given the disparity in resources between consultants and manufacturers, time may come when they will have a louder voice as voting members. IIBEC members have worked hard to establish IIBEC’s reputation as a consultant centric organization. There are many other organizations that represent manufacturers and contractors. In my view, it is essential to maintain IIBEC’s image as an organization that represents consultants.
I am one of the original founders of RCI, now IIBEC. I was a Charter Member of RCI. I am a Past President for two years. I am a Fellow of the Institute. I am an Emeritus Member and an Emeritus Professional Engineer. I received the IIBEC Lifetime Achievement Award and the Herb Busching Award. I authored the first set of Bylaws for RCI. I devoted most of my life to building envelope consulting, especially roof consulting. I know a little about our PROFESSION as Consultants.
I am one of the original founders of RCI, now IIBEC. I was a Charter Member of RCI. I am a Past President for two years. I am a Fellow of the Institute. I am an Emeritus Member and an Emeritus Professional Engineer. I received the IIBEC Lifetime Achievement Award and the Herb Busching Award. I authored the first set of Bylaws for RCI. I devoted most of my life to building envelope consulting, especially roof consulting. I know a little about our PROFESSION as Consultants. The proposed change to the Bylaws regarding who gets to vote is completely contrary to what RCI and IIBEC have ALWAYS stood for. As always, only consultants should be allowed to vote. I urge all voting members to vote against this change and ask some questions of what prompted this. The April 7 webinar was not compelling.
I agree with Richard Cannon, and the other Consultant members expressing concern about voting eligibility. Now that this is removed from the upcoming ballot, this item will be reviewed in more depth and clarity before presentation to IIBEC members.
Thank you for tabling question 2 for future review and to members who have responded. Perhaps this process will not have been a waste of time after all, if it has provided much needed awareness of issues for our voting members, and also if voter turnout increases as a result. We all need to be more engaged, for the good of the Institute. Clarification question: I see that in the Bylaws posted here today (April 21), the revised wording for voting rights still remains in place. I trust that this will be removed at some point soon before ballots are sent out? Second question regarding proposed bylaw change for the following, as taken from the proposed bylaw change (note that wording in brackets is crossed off in the bylaws but there not an option to cross off words here): “Article 22. AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed, or new Bylaws adopted only with approval by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of (the IIBEC voting members who submit ballots) members with a right to vote at any meeting where quorum is present or by written ballot.” Can you confirm what is meant by “any meeting”? Is this a virtual meeting, an in person meeting, or other type? Third question: See Article 8 Section 1 Officers. Why is IIBEC limiting the eligibility to run for office to those who “demonstrate at least two (2) years of IIBEC leadership experience within the past five (5) years may hold office. This leadership experience may include service as a Region Director or as Chair of an IIBEC Board level committee.”? By my count, this would limit the pool of candidates to possibly less than 25 to 30 members. On one hand, we want more participation, and on the other hand we want to limit eligibility. How about those who have been in leadership positions in the past, but not in the past 5 years? Consider those who have the wisdom of experience. The wording continues to open up nominations to others if the first criteria is not met, but I believe that those wanting to run will not bother running based on the first restrictions. Note that historically, IIBEC has had trouble finding candidates and members running for election were acclaimed because they were the only one found by the nominating committee. This is a much bigger problem, and a proper bylaw change should require a minimum of 2 candidates be selected, and the nominating committee make every effort to fulfill this requirement. Some food for thought for Question 1 bylaw changes
Everyone please settle down. None of this issue is about Industry strangling out Consultant Members. I speak loud and clear to you, having been on both sides of the fence for far too long. Nobody is trying to outwit and take over anybody. All Industry asked for was a seat at the table. They never asked for a monopoly of seats so they could institute some kind of “take it all and keep it” mentality. While I was miffed that I came to work for an “Industry” entity and therefore (overnight) branded as a non-voting member, wondering what hit me
