Once again, I am posting three more comments.

Binshan

------------------------------------------------

From: Davis, Mark [mailto:MDAVIS@bentley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:02 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (14th)

 

Dear Binshan,

 

I thank you for these emails. I agree with the sentiments of others who think the issue of restructuring the Board is of sufficient importance that it needs to be discussed further by the Board. I would even propose that it be discussed at a “Town Meeting” at the Annual Meeting in November. This will provide an opportunity for all who have concerns/views to present them. Clearly, there are many sides to this issue and all views should to be taken into consideration.

 

With respect to the electronic voting, this is long overdue. The only change I would suggest is that we separate out the approval of electronic voting which would be part of the by-laws from the actual process for doing it, which I think should belong in the Policies and Procedures Manual, thereby not requiring a membership every time we want to change the process for conducting electronic voting.

 

Mark

-------------------------------

 

From: keong.leong@unlv.edu [mailto:keong.leong@unlv.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:42 PM

 

I agree with Ram on postponing the vote by the members. This issue has ruffled some feathers and we need time to have the regions weigh in on the matter. My understanding is that a few of the regions will be responding to this issue. The WDSI board will meet in March to discuss this. As such by the April DSI board meeting we will get a sense of what the regions are thinking.

Janelle raised a very good point. Not having regionally elected VPs does not imply that regions are not important. Thanks.

All the best.

Keong
----------------

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shaw K. Chen [mailto:chenshaw@uriacc.uri.edu]

 

I have kept our NEDSI key members, president, president-elect, and

VP(NEDSI)-elect, fully informed with the recent exchanges in these matters.

We will present and discuss these issues at our Board meeting in March.

 

Thanks.  Shaw K

 

 

I am posting four more comments.

Binshan

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Marc J Schniederjans [mailto:mschnied@unlnotes.unl.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:12 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: Re: DSI and SWDSI

 

Hi Binshan:

Having been in more than one regional division of DSI and worked in them, I feel the regional contribution to DSI is essential to our future and the basic service role we play in the careers of our faculty members.

Now, I have had nothing to do with any of the DSI Board's decision making for years (other than the meeting I am chairing) and am completely unaware of the recent policy changes or moves like the ones discussed here.  I can say that the best way to deal with this type of issue is to be verbal, constant, and mass as many members as you can to air their opinions to the members of the DSI Board and other top leading members.  

I have only this month been made a VP at Large so you will have a friend out there when ever it is I am officially put on the Board.  Currently, I can not do or say much as I don't have any voice or say at this time on the Board.

Best wishes,

Marc Schniederjans

---------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Latta [mailto:DSICJL@langate.gsu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:04 PM
To: Thomas W. Jones
Cc: hanna@cl.uh.edu; david.chou@emich.edu; Lin, Binshan; ken@thekendalls.org; pavur@unt.edu; Chang-tseh Hsieh; randrews@vcu.edu
Subject: Re: Proposed Changes to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws: additional remarks

 

Hi Tom and All,

 

I take full responsibility for drafting the statement concerning procedures for making proposed changes to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws.  I developed a condensed version of the instructions that I thought captured an acceptable interpretation of the requirements for making proposed changes to our Constitution and Bylaws, primarily because a sense of urgency in the timing of this matter had been indicated to me.  I apologize for the concerns this has caused, and will do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation.  One thing I am very happy about is the dialogue that has been generated.   The DSI Board considers your comments very seriously and with due importance.   Just for your information, I have received more votes regarding these proposed Constitution and Bylaw changes than  through any other means by which we have published proposed changes.

 

Again, I offer my most sincere apologies.

 

With best wishes,

 

Carol

 

************************************

Carol J. Latta

Executive Director

Decision Sciences Institute

35 Broad Street, 4th Floor

Atlanta, GA  30303

(404) 413-7711 (office)

(404) 413-7714 (fax)

e-mail: clatta@gsu.edu

website: www.decisionsciences.org

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

From: Dr. Mary Fischer [mailto:mlfischer@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:51 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

I concur that a resolution is a good start.   However, I also agree with Tom Jones that the proper procedure has not been followed. Not sure how to correct the error. Surely there is a story behind all of this that has not been shared.   What is causing the need for change?   Did the DSI Board get too big too fast? If so, there should be another answer than just reducing the size. Since the region and/or the VP's school has paid most of the cost of the Regional VP attending the meeting what is the root of the Board wanting to reduce it's size/cost?   Seems to me that too much was done in the back room and too little public opinion was requested. The lack of transparency results in distrust.   Wonder what can be done to restore an overall faith and trust in the national DSI leadership? Is that something that we as a region should address.   Think a open forum at our meeting is a beginning and should help.

 

Hope these comments help.

 

Mary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul Cronan [mailto:PCronan@walton.uark.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:15 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (12th mailing)

 

I think it will be good for our region to discuss these matters; a good, respectful discussion is always helpful to making a better organization.  Seems that one key issue that threads itself through the various email comments is that of representation.  As I consider the issues, here are a few questions that may need our discussion:

-          Is SWDSI a component or part of DSI?

-          Do our members (SWDSI) feel it important to be a part of national DSI; as an organization; as individual members?

-          If we are a part of DSI, who represents us: if we are individual members of DSI, then we elect the DSI officers/Board (who in turn are our representatives).

-          Perhaps, some procedures at the Board level need to be discussed – such as committee nomination/membership/appointments and DSI Officer/Board member nominations (who are usually nominated by committee members previously appointed by officers).  To me this could possibly be problematic if there are no checks and balances.   

-          And, of course, we must follow proper procedures according to Constitution and Bylaws.

 

Thanks for allowing my comment…

 

Paul

Paul Cronan

M. D. Matthews Chair in Information Systems

Information Systems, Sam M. Walton College of Business

University of Arkansas

479.575.6130

 

 

Dear All,

Below please see two more comments (with their permission to post) from two DSI Board members and one comment from SWDSI Council.

Binshan

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Klein [mailto:gklein@uccs.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:48 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI

 

Binshan:

 

I agree that these actions could have some unintended consequences that may not have been realized when first decided.  And like so many others that have participated in the discussion so far, I agree that a resolution is an effective means to communicate the collective desires of the region.  Though such a resolution requires more immediate attention, I also think that higher issues have been raised that need the attention of the DSI Board – with significant input from the regional and chapter members.

 

As raised in the original comments, the relationship most desired by the board with the regions must be established by the parent organization.  Regions may then buy in or not as they see fit.  However, this decision cannot be made without extensive input from the variety of interests and at all levels of membership.  It seems there is a wide variety of approaches taken and desired by the individual regions.  Not all will want the same relationship nor will they wish to operate in similar fashion to others. 

 

So a constructive resolution would be a good start in making certain that any actions do not erode what relationships exist.  But it seems in order that the nature of the relationships between regions and DSI International also be re-examined.  Importantly, there is a common basis – that DSI International needs the regions to promote membership growth and serve colleagues that do not have the resources, time, or desire to participate at the International/national level (or to serve those colleagues who desire both) .  We need these colleagues to have an interest in the professional community just as we need their contributions to our body of knowledge regarding the decision sciences and the classroom.

 

So additional questions beyond the immediate include “What does DSI International have to offer the regionals?”  “What does DSI international not offer that is expected in other academic/professional societies or can reasonably be extended to offer?” “What can we as a region offer to DSI?”.  We can even go beyond these to questions as “Should DSI maintain a region structure, or go more to an affiliate structure with other professional societies and treat regions similarly to (or differently from) other professional affiliates?”  And I’d best stop before I get too far – I know this list could go on so that we are forever asking questions and never making progress.   But, my bet is that many of these questions have already been asked at Board meetings in recent years, including when these changes were proposed. 

 

Thanks for stimulating this discussion, as always I am more than happy to put my foot in my mouth.

 

-          Gary

-------------------------------------------

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk Karwan [mailto:kirk.karwan@furman.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:17 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: Re: DSI and SWDSI

 

Binshan,

 

I will report back to on Friday sometime.  As I wrote yesterday, I am now

at SEDSI and there is considerable animosity about this proposal.  The

southeast region is also going to craft a letter...Bob Andrews has

prepared a first draft and we will be discussing all day tomorrow.

 

Thanks for forwarding all of this.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk Karwan

Professor and Chair

Department of Business and Accounting

Furman University

3300 Poinsett Highway

Greenville, SC 29613

phone (864) 294-2285

----------------------------

 

 

From: Kitchens, Fred L. [mailto:FKITCHENS@bsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:47 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (10th mailing)

 

Binshan,

 

As I attempted to express in my earlier email, I am not exactly “opposed” to what DSI is suggesting – but I do have concerns that need to be addressed before I would “support” their proposal.

 

At this time, I would support submitting a list of questions, or inviting a member of the DSI board to discuss this with us.  But, I would be hesitant to submit a resolution if the wording sounded like an attempt to “block” anything.

 

I’d like to avoid any turf-battles or ego-trips (“What do they do for us?” and “What do we do for them?”); rather focusing on the health of both the National and the Regional organizations.

 

My original concerns were basically two:

1 – I don’t care about the reduction in the number of Regional members of the National Board.  I am more concerned about the apparent “distancing” of the National DSI from the Regionals.  It appears that there is an ‘extra layer’ of people being added between the Regionals and the DSI Board (Regional VP’s in essence have a meeting of their own, from which only one representative meets with the DSI Board.) 

2 – The taxing of the Regionals boils down to a fee charged for the use of the DSI name.  The questions facing future Regional leaders will be, “What do we get for that fee?” and “Should we become independent from National DSI?”  I agree that there is an ongoing problem with membership requirements as they are currently stipulated and managed.  But, a tax appears to de-emphasize membership.  Isn’t increased membership in both organizations the real issue here?  Perhaps the process should be reengineered before it is canned.

 

-Fred

 

Fred L. Kitchens, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Information Systems

Academic Advisor for Information Systems Majors

Director, Cluster Computing Research Project

Advisor, Association of Information Technology Professionals

Miller College of Business

Ball State University

 

 

Dear All,

It was encouraging to receive comments from DSI top leadership (Dr. Ken Kendell, Dr. Norman Harrison, and Dr. Ram Narasimhan) after we air our options to many DSI/SWDSI members.  I am posting three comments below.  More words from DSI board member and another regions will be posted when they are available.

Binshan

 

 

From: Norma Harrison [mailto:nharrison@ceibs.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:47 PM
To: Lin, Binshan; 'Carol Latta'; 'Ken Kendall'
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (10th mailing)

 

Dear Binshan,

Great comments and very much needed from the Regions.  We may have to reconsider this decision in the light of the comments.  However, I do not know that others in the DSI will be similarly interested in commenting. This is important before the decision gets passed.

Best wishes,

Norma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Narasimhan, Ram [mailto:narasimh@bus.msu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:01 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI

 

Dear Binshan:

Great to hear from you! Hope everything is well with you.  I will look over the e-mail exchanges and I am sure that this will be a topic of major discussion in the April meeting.

Best regards,

Ram

 

Ram Narasimhan

John H. McConnell Endowed Professor &

University Distinguished Professor

Department of Supply Chain management

Eli Broad Graduate School of Management

Michigan State University

E. Lansing, MI 48824

Ph: 517-432-6426

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Kendall [mailto:ken@thekendalls.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:12 AM
To: Lin, Binshan; Carol Latta; Norma Harrison
Subject: Re: DSI and SWDSI (10th mailing)

 

Dear Binshan,

Thank you for forwarding all of the comments. I appreciate the enthusiasm that many of our DSI family are expressing. This is ultimately good for the Institute. Remember that I ran for DSI President on a platform for renewing the Institute. That meant that I wanted to revitalize the family that we once had. Showing your love for the Institute is exactly what I wanted to achieve.

Regarding the Board decisions at Napa, the Board realized that the Board of Directors has become too large to be effective. The Board discussed many options including keeping the regional VPs and having no at-large VPs. In the end, however, the Board decided in favor of proposing having only nationally-elected VPs serve on the DSI Board of Directors.

As President I was not allowed to vote; nor did I speak either in favor or against the VPs issue. Once the vote was taken to propose these changes, I did ask Carol Latta, our Executive Director, to take the necessary steps to implement the Board decision, which includes writing to the entire membership about the proposed changes.

Regarding my email requesting comments about the proposed changes to the Constitution and By-laws, the following statement was added by the home office: "The proposed changes to the Constitution must be approved by the DSI members. Please cast your vote by no later than March 12, 2008 in favor or not of the proposed changes by returned email to Carol Latta. Proposed changes to the By-laws will require a vote by the membership if requested by at least five percent of the Members. If you are in favor of submitting to DSI members a written ballot for voting on the proposed By-law changes, please direct your request by email to Carol Latta." I assume these sentences were boilerplated from some other document. I have since asked our Executive Director to determine whether this is indeed the correct procedure for this particular instance.

The home office is, of course, bound to follow the procedures of our Constitution and By-laws and has the responsibility and authority to ask DSI members to vote using proper ballots as appropriate. We are fortunate to have an Executive Director who has experience in these matters. Carol will handle this in the proper manner.

At the Board meeting, I was asked what would happen if the regions would object and start a campaign to keep the regional VPs. My answer was that it would be perfectly acceptable. If we could recharge the regions so that regional participants who are not members of DSI would actually join DSI so that they could vote on issues such as this one, then this would be a satisfactory outcome that we could embrace as well.

Please understand (and communicate to your constituency if you wish) that the issues being addressed regarding VPs will eventually be decided by DSI members in good standing, not the Board.

Ken

 

Again, I am posting two more comments.

Binshan

 

From: Carl M Rebman Jr [mailto:carlr@sandiego.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:54 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

Binshan,

 

I agree with the comments and I believe resolution(s) should be made. Here are my suggestions (take them for what they are worth)

 

1.     SWDSI approves of electronic ballots.

2.     SWDSI opposes the removal of its representation on the board. (if the number of members on the board is too large perhaps remove the VP-at large)

3.     SWDSI opposes the ‘regional’ tax fee.

 

Carl

Carl M. Rebman Jr., Ph.D.
Secretary & Publications Coordinator Southwest Decision Sciences Institute
Associate Professor of Information Technology & Electronic Commerce
University of San Diego
School of Business Administration
5998 Alcala Park West
Coronado 212
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4135
carlr

 

From: Russ Jones [mailto:RJONES@astate.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:08 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

Binshan,

 

I believe that the regionally associations are the ‘’grass roots” of DSI and that without the regionals, DSI would suffer even greater difficulties then at present. In my opinion, DSI is in place to service the collective needs of the regionals and not the reverse. Regionals, such as SWDSI, are an integral lifeblood of DSI and should be treated as such. As a council member, I support a resolution stating our opposition to the proposed changes.

 

Russell Jones

 

 

Good afternoon! I am posting five more comments.

Binshan

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pavur [mailto:pavur@unt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:57 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: Resolution

 

Binshan,

 

Thank you for posting the responses to these issues.  I endorse a response or resolution from our membership to the DSI board. Perhaps we need to send a message to the DSI board that our region does not support any structure of the DSI board without the representation of regional VPs.  Requiring the President of a region to perform the additional duties of the regional VP is a major change in responsibility that has not been well thought out.

 

Your efforts in representing us on the DSI board are much appreciated.

 

Robert

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Vijay Kannan [mailto:v.kannan@usu.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:06 AM

To: Lin, Binshan

Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI

 

Binshan

 

Thanks for sharing this with me. I have already had one long time member

of DSI contact me wanting to know EXACTLY what went on in Napa,

motivated by a sense of concern about how decisions are being made - I

also could not attend. I will share this with  my board and we can

discuss it at our meeting next month.  My initial and personal reaction

however is that absent resolution on what the relationship between DSI

and the regions is to be going forward, it is premature to make

substantive change in terms of the operating relationship - VP

representation, 'fees' etc.

 

Vijay

 

Vijay R. Kannan, Ph.D.

Vernon Maughan Buehler & MaRee C. Buehler Professor

Professor of Operations Management

Jon M. Huntsman School of Business

Utah State University

Logan, UT 84322-3510

 

 

From: Daily, Bonnie [mailto:bdaily@bae.ad.nmsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:45 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

Binshan,

 

I too believe a resolution is needed to voice our displeasure, please add my name to the list of those in favor of the resolution.

 

Bonnie

 

Bonnie F. Daily, Ph.D

Professor

Department Head

Management Dept., MSC 3DJ

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM  88003

voice (505) 646-1201

fax (505) 646-1372

e-mail: bdaily@nmsu.edu

website: http://business.nmsu.edu/~bdaily/

 

 

From: breithel@bus.olemiss.edu [mailto:breithel@bus.olemiss.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:27 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: resolution

 

Binshan,

 

Certainly.  I was generally in favor of the proposed changes.  If, however, the majority of the SWDSI Board chooses to register some form of formal resolution in opposition to the changes, that is certainly within our board’s set of available and legitimate options.  While I would not actively oppose such a movement, I would abstain from voting on such a ballot, personally.

 

In my own experience, I have served on a large number of boards of directors and in numerous executive/officer positions.  Based on those experiences, here is the reasoning behind my favorable disposition toward the proposed changes:

 

Proposed change #1 – electronic voting.  This seems sensible to me.  Modern boards do not always need to meet in person.  It is quite easy to have a conference call and then simply submit formal votes, for the record, via electronic device (email, in this instance).  The only question that I would ask with regard to this change is whether or not such voting is legal in the state (Georgia?) in which DSI is formally incorporated/chartered.  Some states have different laws on this matter.

 

Proposed change #2 – continuity and mentoring of leadership on the constitutionally-mandated and standing committees.  Again, this appears to be entirely sensible.  It will help the committees make strategic (i.e., multi-year) progress and avoid reinventing-the-wheel every year.  This is a chronic challenge for DSI and other associations, in my own experience.

 

Proposed change #3 – a smaller working board.  A board of directors becomes unwieldy – again, just in my own experience – when it gets past about a dozen or so members.  Plus, the organization wastes funds on travel expenses for the additional members (who generally add very little true “value” in a meeting in which people cannot get a word in edgewise because there are “too many cooks in the kitchen”).

 

Further to change #3, and I know this might be viewed as some kind of “SWDSI heresy” by some, I have personally always questioned the wisdom of insisting on regional representation on a national board.  Frankly, in terms of my own feelings about the dysfunctional history of the DSI board, I would instead rather see DSI re-organized into formally chartered “interest groups” – rather than “geographical groups” – and see those interest groups elect VPs to the national board. 

 

This probably stems from my own perception that the national DSI office (and board) really has very little to do with our Southwest group (and board)… and that’s okay!  We operate just fine and so do they. 

 

On the other hand, part of DSI’s failings (as a national organization) over the past two decades stem from its failure to more broadly embrace the role of information systems and technologies in the organization’s purpose and scope.  Look at what has happened: AIS has risen to replace DSI as the leading annual “regular” event for IS faculty and DSI has fallen.  That happened, in my own opinion, because the national board was asleep at the wheel and/or because it was too focused on geographical/membership issues and not focused enough on the personal and professional growth needs of its various stakeholder/member groups (particularly information systems scholars, from my own point of view).

 

That’s my two cents worth…

 

Hope it helps,

Brian

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon Y. Li [mailto:eli@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:33 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: Re: DSI and SWDSI

 

Hi Binshan,

 

A formal resolution is in order. Please share your document with APDSI

and WDSI.

 

Have a nice day everyday!

 

All the best,

Eldon

******************************************************************

* Eldon Y. Li, Ph.D., CPIM, CDE

 

 

 

Dear All,

I am posting four more comments. Please keep it in mind that DSI Board meeting will be held in April, while DSI Exe. Comm. will be held in March.

Binshan

 

From: John Seydel [mailto:jseydel@astate.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:30 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

Binshan –

 

In general, the regional associations are struggling, and, as a past president of SWDSI, I feel it’s important that we do forward a resolution to DSI concerning our feelings.  We have an opportunity not just to survive but to thrive, but it seems that DSI sometimes develops policies that work against our efforts. 

 

Again, thanks for keeping us posted and representing SWDSI so ably on the DSI Board.

 

                             -- John

 

****************************************************
              John Seydel, Coordinator
  Department of Computer & Information Technology
             Arkansas State University
                   P.O. Box 130
            State University, AR  72467

               Voice:  (870) 680-8072
               FAX:    (870) 972-3417
               Home:   (870) 972-9613
           
             eMail:  jseydel@astate.edu
           http://Business.AState.edu/CIT
****************************************************

From: Lai Liu [mailto:liul@utpa.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:20 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (8th mailing)

 

Dr. Lin:

 

Good afternoon.  I concur with all my peers at SWDSI that we should prepare a resolution to let the National Office understand the magnitude of our displeasure with their recent hostile proposal.  In particular, we ask that all processes and actions proposed to be carried out in accordance with the spirit of our DSI founders.

 

Best wishes.

 

L. Liu, Council Member-SWDSI

 

From: David Douglas [mailto:DDouglas@walton.uark.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: resolution

 

Binshan

 

I would prefer to discuss this at the SWDSI meeting at FBD—as the exchange will be F2F which is a richer communications medium that email—which allows multiple interpretations with lag times between clarification.

 

Thanks. 

 

David.

 

Dr. David E. Douglas

Business Building 204

1 University of Arkansas

Phone: 479.575.6114 Fax: 479.575.4168

 

 

As a council member I would like to endorse the idea of a resolution.

 

 

Again, I am adding two more inputs.

Binshan

 

 

From: Hanna, Mike [mailto:hanna@uhcl.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:33 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE:

 

I concur that SWDSI should prepare a formal resolution indicating our displeasure with the Board's action.  It is imperative that we develop a resolution to let DSI know that the region is upset with what the Board has done.

 

Thanks!

Mike

 

From: Jones, Charlotte
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:49 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (7th mailing)

 

Binshan,

As a Council member of SWDSI, I would also like to request a resolution concerning the DSI proposed changes before the Houston SWDSI meeting.

Thank you.

Charlotte Jones

 

Charlotte A. Jones

Dean, College of Business Administration

LSU in Shreveport

One University Place

Shreveport, LA  71115

318.797.5383

 

From: Lin, Binshan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:11 PM
Subject: DSI and SWDSI (7th mailing)

Dear All,

I am posting three formal requests for a resolution regarding the DSI proposed changes prior to our Houston meeting.

Binshan  

 

 

From: Chang-tseh Hsieh [mailto:Chang-tseh.hsieh@usm.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 1:05 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Subject: DSI and SWDSI - request for a resolution

 

Dear Binshan:

 

After reviewing the DSI proposed changes and the inputs from concerned SWDSI officers, I, as the immediate Past President of the SWDSI, would like to formally make a motion for a resolution regarding those proposed changes before SWDSI meeting in Houston.

 

Please let me know if there is anything that I need to do.

 

Thank you for your time and hard works on behalf of the SWDSI.

 

Chang

 

**************************************************

Chang T. Hsieh, Ph.D.
McCarty Distinguished Professor in MIS
Editor, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, <http://www.iima.org/New%20Pages/JITIM.html>
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Intercultural Information management, www.inderscience.com/ijiim

President, International Information Management Association, 2008
University of Southern Mississippi
118 College Drive, #5178
Hattiesburg, MS 39406
601-266-4641
Chang-tseh.Hsieh@usm.edu
**************************************************

 

 

From: Kai Koong [mailto:koongk@utpa.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:00 PM
To: Lin, Binshan
Cc: Jones, Thomas; Chang-tseh Hsieh; David C Chou; Daily, Bonnie
Subject: Request for the Preparation of a Formal Resolution Before SWDSI in Houston

 

Dear Dr. Lin:

 

Just want to thank you for the many versions of e-mails received in the last two weeks.

 

Indeed, the many responses to the action items proposed by the National Office have been examined quite thoroughly, especially by Dr. Thomas Jones, our beloved colleague from the University of Arkansas.  I am in complete agreement with his very detailed analysis.  Thank you very much, Dr. Jones.

 

Apart from the processes and spirit of collaboration that have been violated, let me point out a couple of very important points.

 

First, each year somewhere around 10 to 15 percent of the new SWDSI participants become members of DSI.  In addition, SWDSI exposes another 20 students to DSI because of our new Student Consortium in Houston this year.  I believe the same may be true of all the other regional chapters.  Put simply, like a Community College is a feeder to a University, regional chapters are critical feeder systems to DSI.  This 10 to 15 percent would not have joined DSI otherwise.  DSI needs to have a deeper appreciation for the roles regional chapters play in the recruiting of new members as well as in the retention of existing ones.  The weakening of or worse yet, the demise of, regional chapters will result in the same for DSI.  Perhaps, instead of speculating about how regional chapters are competing with the limited dollars, it may be prudent to study what effects the weakening or demise of regional chapters will have on DSI National.  The answers may provide the current leadership at the national level with a real awakening.

 

Second, if members are being added to DSI National by the regional chapters, why is the membership not growing healthily and why are the participation rates low at national conferences?  Bear in mind, participation rates at the regional level is good.  Bottom line, why is DSI National failing in its effort to increase membership or conference participation rate?  Instead of streamlining the seats held by regional representatives who are serving well and being hostile to regional chapters, the answer may be found in the re-examination of the national infrastructure, the development of better informed decisions, and the identification of services that actually adds value to DSI members.  For example, how can DSI do a better job of serving the membership – for a start, find out why only a small portion of members are attending the recognition luncheon (is it one the wrong days) – it is a shame when few people actually come and recognize their winning peers.  By the way, the President BBQ at Phoenix was a good change.  For some $350 registration fee, feeding the delegates pop corn and pretzels is a joke.  Finally, learn to time and include the membership fee in the conference registration fee.  Many universities do not pay membership fees.  That will improve retention rates.

 

Last but not least, while all these discussions are good and meaningful, I would like to recommend that a formal resolution be written-up and prepared before our meeting in Houston.  That way, DSI National will have a reason to respond to all the discussions brought forth to-date.

 

Thank you.

 

Kai S. Koong, D.B.A.

Program Chair, SWDSI 2008, Houston

President-Elect, SWDSI Year 2008-2009

Chair, CISQUMT Department, COBA-UTPA

 

P/S.  Please feel free to forward my comments.  Thank you and best wishes.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: June Wei [mailto:jwei@uwf.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:36 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Cc: June Wei
Subject: RE: DSI and SWDSI (6th mailing)

 

Dear Dr. Lin:

 

Thanks for sharing these ramifications with us.  After carefully reviewed those comments, here are my inputs.

 

First, I agree with Charges 1 and 2, and have no comments on them.

 

Charges 3, 4 and 5 are misleading.  By searching on the roles, strategies and goals of regional and national DSI, they have somewhat overlapping.  However, their structures and operations should be independent.  Along that line,

 

I disagree the statement in Charge 3 "Regionally elected [vice] presidents need not be members of the Board".  The regional VP is necessary and serves important role to represent regional DSI in the national DSI board.  It would be good to keep the regional VP and maintain the current perceived relationship of regional with national DSI.  Furthermore, the president of regional DSI has a one year term,  which is confusing if the tasks of regionally elected VP (with two year term) were assigned to the president.

 

I disagree the structure of franchise and charge "a franchise fee or a head tax" for the use of the DSI logo and name in Charge 4.  The franchise structure would cause negative effect to maintain a health relationship between national and regional DSI.

 

In Charge 5, I disagree the statement that "enforcing the requirement that those attending a regional conference be a member of DSI".  This mechanism is trying to maintain regional affiliation with DSI; however, might have negative effect on regional DSI, such as the possible reduction of regional DSI attendance.  Other alternative mechanisms need be considered to maintain regional affiliation with DSI.

 

Again, the regional DSI needs to keep independent operations from the national DSI, and seeks ways to make regional DSI more effective and steadily grow.  The southern region of Academy of Management is a good example of being independent from its national.  For instance, one journal published by southern region of Academy of Management has been strongly growing and ranks as a top Tie I journal.

 

I personally agree with Dr. Thomas Jones's remarks.  As a member of SWDSI council, I suggest that the SWDSI council take a proactive action and propose a resolution to the DSI prior to Houston meeting. 

 

Sincerely,

 

June

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

June Wei, PhD

Department of Management/Management Information Systems

College of Business

University of West Florida

Pensacola, FL 32514

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Dear All,

Two items updated: First, I was informed that our discussions/issues will be seen by the DSI Exec Committee in March.

While I am still contacting other regional officers, I share the comments of AP-DSI President below. Second, below please see “additional remarks’ sent by Tom Jones to Carol Latta this afternoon. Have a great weekend!

Binshan

 

 

From: Thomas W. Jones [mailto:twjones@comp.uark.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Carol Latta
Subject: Proposed Changes to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws: additional remarks

 

Carol,

 

I have some additional remarks concerning the e-mail from Ken Kendall.  After careful reading of the DSI Constitution Article XVI and Article XVII, which address changes to the DSI Bylaws and to the DSI Constitution, respectively, I have concluded that the actions taken by the DSI Board of Directors to approve changes to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws are not in order.  (Others with whom I’ve spoken concur with this conclusion.)  As explained below, the DSI Board of Directors acted improperly and without authority.

 

Also, I do not know if Robert’s Rules of Order specifies it, but as a courtesy to the membership, the proposed changes should have clearly indicated the inserted and/or deleted text for each amendment.  I cannot recall when I have seen a formal presentation to amend a constitution or a bylaw that has not shown the original language and the new language.  Had this been done, then everyone would have learned about the (proposed) elimination of the Regionally-Elected Vice Presidents from the Board of Directors, which is not mentioned in Ken’s e-mail.  (Article VII, 1., which specifies the composition of the Board of Directors, indicates “The Institute’s Board of Directors shall consist of the President (who serves as Chairperson), the immediate Past President, the President-Elect, the Secretary, the Treasurer, and Vice Presidents, one elected by each of the Regional subdivisions and an equal number of Vice Presidents elected at-large, and the Executive Director as an ex-officio member.”)

 

With respect to changes in the Bylaws, Article XVI, 1. states “Bylaws shall be prepared by the Institute’s Board of Directors and submitted to the Members of the Institute for approval.  Adoption of the Bylaws shall require a majority affirmative vote of those Members returning a ballot for voting on the Bylaws within 30 days after their mailing to the Members.”  In addition, Article XVI, 2. (a) states “Changes to the Bylaws proposed by the Board of Directors shall be published in the Institute's official News Publication, or sent by a special mailing to the Members.  If, within 30 days after dissemination, at least five percent of the Members request a vote by the membership, a written ballot for voting on the proposed change will be submitted to the Members promptly, but in no case later than three months after the original dissemination of the proposed Bylaws change.  Approval of the Bylaws change requires a majority affirmative vote of those Members returning the ballot within 30 days after their mailing to the Members.  If less than five percent of the Members request a vote of the membership, the proposed Bylaws change will be submitted to the Board of Directors for a vote, approval requiring a two-thirds affirmative vote of the membership of the Board.”  (Please note that Article XVI, 2. (b) addresses changes to the Bylaws proposed by Members, but it is not relevant to this discussion.)

 

Consequently, the process specified in Ken’s email is inconsistent with the process stated in the DSI Constitution.  For changes to the Bylaws proposed by the Board of Directors, there is a period of time for the membership to request a vote by the Members of the Institute, followed by a vote by the membership if necessary.  Only if less than five percent of the Members request a vote of the membership does the DSI Board of Directors vote on proposed changes to the Bylaws.  Therefore, as asserted previously, the Board of Directors did not have the authority to approve new Bylaws or to change the Bylaws at the time of such action by it in January 2008.

 

With respect to changes in the Constitution, Article XVII, 1. states “No article shall be added to this Constitution and no part shall be amended or annulled except by written ballot sent to all Members.  A change in the Constitution requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Members returning said written ballots within 30 days after their mailing to the Members.”

 

Once again, the process specified in Ken’s email is inconsistent with the process stated in the DSI Constitution.  The Board of Directors or the Members of the Institute may submit proposals for changes in the Constitution (see Article XVII, 2.), but only the membership may approve or reject such proposals.  Thus, as asserted previously, the Board of Directors does not have the authority to approve a change to the Constitution.

 

Finally, is an e-mail such as sent by Ken considered an acceptable mail ballot?

 

Sincerely,

Tom

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon Y. Li [mailto:eli@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:49 AM
To: Lin, Binshan
Cc: Carol Latta
Subject: Re: DSI and SWDSI

 

Dear Binshan,

 

Happy New Year and thanks much for sharing the messages with me.

 

I am sure WDSI Officers will respond to these changes.  Personally, I do

not agree with the idea of charging franchise fee.  However, in APDSI

conference, we do built in the membership fee for DSI national

membership as part of the registration fee, just like national DSI

conference does.  As the President of APDSI, I completely agree with

this practice and our Board also supports it.

 

I also agree that we should eliminate at large VP and keep the REVP on

the board.  As for the two-year term for DSI President, I don't know why

the board made the decision.  President will become Past-President once

he or she steps down.  That is, he or she will serve on the board for

two years anyway.  Therefore, I do not agree with the two-year term.

 

I am sharing this with Carol, thus the CC.  See you around.

 

Have a nice day everyday!

 

All the best,

Eldon

******************************************************************

* Eldon Y. Li, Ph.D., CPIM, CDE

 

 

Good morning! I am posting four more inputs that I received last night.

Binshan

 

·         Thanks for keeping us posted on these issues.

 

·         I think each of us needs to know the DSI Constitution Article XVII – Changes in Constitution

 

‘No article shall be added to this Constitution and no part shall be amended or annulled except by written ballot sent to all Members. A change in the Constitution requires a two-third affirmative vote of the Members returning said written ballots within 30 days after their mailing to the Members.”

 

·         My apologies for not responding earlier – I have had the flu and had a lot of work back up.  A few thoughts:

1)      I’m am confused by the logo tax – it suggests we pay a tax but releases DSI from providing “free services” ??– I think a tax is a very bad idea. The regions support National – I don’t understand the somewhat hostile/competitive stance of this document in regards to regionals.

2)      I don’t think a tax in lieu of releasing chapters from making a DSI member requirement is a fair trade off. I don’t think we need a tax; the regions feed folks to National by keeping them informed and involved that should be sufficient.

3)      I don’t know what to think about the recommendations on making Presidents into two year terms to serve on the DSI Board of Directors – this would be a significant change and we already have several lined up for one year stints so it would be difficult for us to change a term length right away and as our folks already have a three year commitment I can’t imagine anyone wanting to lengthen that.

Hope these comments help – I’m not completely sure I interpreted the report clearly – it seemed somewhat confusing. See you in Houston.

 

From: David C Chou [mailto:dchou@emich.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:17 PM
To: dchou@emich.edu
Cc: Lin, Binshan
Subject: Fwd: Re: DSI and SWDSI ( 4th mailing)

·         Dear SWDSI members:

The DSI Board proposed changes to the DSI Constitution and By-laws in their January meeting. These proposed changes may affect relationship between DSI and SWDSI.  Dr. Binshan Lin, our Regional Elected VP, is working on this issue with DSI Home Office.

I forward his email that sent to SWDSI officers this evening. Please read it and make needed support to him.

Best regards,

David

David C. Chou, Professor
President, Southwest Decision Sciences Institute, http://www.swdsi.org
Department of Computer Information Systems
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Tel: 734-487-0054. Fax: 734-487-1941
Email: david.chou@emich.edu

 

 

Dear All,

I believe that everyone should receive on 2/11/08 an email from DSI with the subject of “Proposed Changes to the DSI Constitution and By-laws.”   Please do not underestimate the importance of these changes and potential impact on SWDSI. With permission of Tom Jones, I am distributing his comments on “Proposal Changes to the DSI Constitution and By-laws” that he wrote to Carol Latta this morning (see below).

Binshan

 

Carol,

 

I have several items which are discussed below concerning the e-mail from Ken Kendall regarding changes to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws.

 

1.  RE:  "The Board approved a few changes to the DSI Constitution and By-laws.  Please review the following changes and address any comments to Carol J. Latta, the Executive Director of the Institute < clatta@gsu.edu > by no later than March 12, 2008.  The proposed changes to the Constitution must be approved by the DSI members. Please cast your vote by no later than March 12, 2008 in favor or not of the proposed changes by returned email to Carol Latta.  Proposed changes to the By-laws will require a vote by the membership if requested by at least five percent of the Members.  If you are in favor of submitting to DSI members a written ballot for voting on the proposed By-law changes, please direct your request by email to Carol Latta."

 

Ken's presentations of the three proposals do not clearly distinguish between changes to the DSI Constitution and changes to the DSI Bylaws (e.g., change to the DSI Constitution and Bylaws 1).  His explanation of Proposal 1 does indicate it is a change to the Bylaws only and of Proposal 2 does indicate it is a change to the Constitution only.  However, Ken's explanation of Proposal 3 does not address the full impact of this proposal.

 

In addition, I really do not understand how the comments sent to you will be beneficial since the DSI Board of Directors already has made its proposals. What is the purpose of soliciting comments?  Will comments result in re-consideration of any proposed change?

 

I do not have any problems with Proposal 1 (i.e., electronic voting) which is a change to the DSI Bylaws nor with Proposal 2 (i.e., committee chair designation) as only one aspect of it impacts the Constitution.  Only changing the chair of the Regional Activities Committee affects Article X, 8.; changing the chairs of the other committees listed in Proposal 2 affects information in the DSI Policy and Procedures Manual.  On the other hand, Proposal 3 (i.e., members of Board of Directors) involves much more than the explanation given in Ken's e-mail.  Proposal 3 impacts the DSI Constitution, the DSI Bylaws, and the DSI Policy and Procedures Manual, as well as each Region's Constitution and Bylaws  -  additional comments appear below.

 

2.  RE:  "The DSI Board will consist of 14 voting members: Executive Director, President, Past-President, President-Elect, Treasurer, Secretary, and eight (8) Vice-Presidents. Kendall will follow the policies to change the by-laws and, if passed, the change will take place on April 1, 2009."

 

It is my understanding that the DSI Board of Directors has taken action to eliminate the Regionally-Elected Vice Presidents (REVPs), which is not mentioned in Ken's e-mail.  Consequently, I believe it is very important to understand what Proposal 3 does not address and the resulting ramifications.

 

Unfortunately, as previously noted, Proposal 3 impacts both the Constitution and the Bylaws, but the e-mail does not disclose the full impact of this proposal.  I have identified the following portions of the DSI Constitution, DSI Bylaws, and DSI Policy and Procedures Manual (P&PM) which are affected by Proposal 3.

 

*  Article VII, 1.  (composition of the Board of Directors)

*  Article X, 1.  (changes in a Region's Constitution and Bylaws)

*  Article X, 8.  (composition of the Regional Activities Committee)

*  Bylaw 3, Section 1. (g)  (terms of REVPs)

*  Bylaw 7, Section 5.  (nominations of REVPs)

*  Bylaw 8, Section 1.  (method of nomination of REVPs)

*  Bylaw 8, Section 2.  (method of election of REVPs)

*  P&PM Chapter Five, II. B. 3. a), d), and g)  (Nominating Committee)

*  P&PM Chapter Five, II. D. 2., .3, and .4  (Regional Activities Committee)

*  P&PM Chapter Six, I. B.  (members of Board of Directors)

*  P&PM Chapter Six, I. B. 1.  (terms)

*  P&PM Chapter Six, I. C. 1. a) and c)  (nomination/election)

*  P&PM Chapter Six, I. C. 2. a) through i)  (duties, etc.)

*  P&PM Chapter Six, I. C. 4. e), g) and m)  (meetings)

 

In addition, with the elimination of REVPs, the following questions need to be answered:

 

*  Will each region need to identify the necessary changes to its constitution and bylaws and subsequently submit them to the Institute's Board of Directors for approval, or will the Home Office make these revisions as "housekeeping" items (see Article X, 1.)?

 

*  Who, if anyone, will act as liaison between the regions and their officers and the Institute's Board of Directors (see P&PM Chapter Six, I. C.

2. h))?

 

*  Who, if anyone, will act as liaison between Alpha Iota Delta and the Institute (see P&PM Chapter Six, I. C. 2. g) and h))?

 

*  Who, if anyone, will submit the State of the Region report each year (see P&PM Chapter Six, I. C. 2. h))?

 

Finally, am I correct in concluding that the eight Vice Presidents are elected "at-large"?

 

Sincerely,

Tom

 

 

Dear All,

 

The DSI home office wanted me to relay to all SWDSI officer that Johnny's report on the Role of the Regions can be very misleading.

 

I also received three more comments from officers, and posted below for further discussion.

 

Binshan 

 

 

It might be useful to examine other academic professional organizations such as the Academy of Management to see how they handle their regional/national relationships.  Do they require that a regional member be a national member, etc. ?  I am not sure how the Academy of Management is structured but how it  is structured (or any other organizations such as this) might be a useful template for looking at various organizational structures that DSI might examine.   It seems to me that on the VP issue that the more people in these roles that the organization can involve, the stronger the organization will become.  There might be a feeling of “taxation with less representation” if the VP level is eliminated.   

 

I am not in favor of a franchise fee.  In the real world, franchise fees are viewed very negatively in most cases even though there are compelling reasons to enter into a franchise agreement.   Is there any way to structure Regional fees so that a certain amount could be used for national membership?  

 

This is interesting.  I certainly think they would eliminate at-large members before Regional VP's and also question the value to the regional groups if they have less representation.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Some very important issues have been raised, and careful thought needs to be given to these before the upcoming SWDSI meeting.  At this time, I have a few brief comments related to some of these issues.

 

First, the key question has once again been raised. What is a regional "member"?  In SWDSI we looked at that a few years ago and revised our bylaws appropriately.  The term "voting member" was used for very specific reasons.  It appears that SE DSI has a similar idea in using the terms "member" and "attendee."   I think this differentiation between a member and a conference attendee is critical.  If this idea is clearly articulated to the DSI board, perhaps many of the issues in the report can be resolved. It would be disastrous to force every attendee of the regional conference to pay dues to become a member of DSI. 

 

Second, the desire to reduce the size of the board is understandable.  At this time (without having much time to evaluate other options), I would support keeping the Regionally-Elected VPs and eliminating the At-Large VPs.

 

In general, we need to consider the mission of DSI and the missions of the regions.  These are not the same although there is definitely some overlap.  That should be the starting point for discussions of the issues raised in this report.

 

 

My initial reaction is that the regions should maintain their current designation. I don't have a problem with the international regions changing their

designation to "Chapter."

 

I am not in favor of treating the regions like they are franchise and having a franchise fee. This is starting to sound like a corporation structure.  I would need to hear some arguments on why this approach is necessary. The present structure of DSI gives validity to the regions even though the regions feel independent.

 

From the response of the regions, clearly the regions do not want to force their members to be members of national DSI.  Regions should not be required to enforce DSI membership on their regional members.

 

The most important change appears to be the recommendation to eliminate the regionally elected VPs on the DSI board. I personally like the idea of having regionally elected VPs on the board. If there is a feeling that the board is too large, then the VP's at Large can be eliminated. Keep in mind that not everyone on the board shows up. I am not sure that the suggestion of a VP-Regions/Chapters replacing the current structure is any more effective. I would have to listen to arguments as to why this is a better structure for the board.  I would want to listen to the discussion on Change 3. At this point, it doesn't sound like a better solution.

 

These are topics we can discuss in Houston. This is an interesting report.

 

The proposal called to replace the Regionally-Elected VP with the current President to serve for a two-year term.  Since the term of our president is one year, this will cause a lot of confusion.  If the decision is final, then maybe we have to discuss how we should send our representative to DSI in the future at this year’s business meeting.

 

 

February 7, 2008

 

Dear SWDSI Officers,

 

The tornadoes during the severe weather on the night of February 5^th killed at least 48 across the south including several university students in our regions.  Hope all is well with you, your family, and your campus.

 

Before the holidays, I reported to Carol Latta that I was unable to attend the DSI Board of Directors meeting in January since I was invited to Australia for a research activity there in the same time frame. After several phone conversations with other Board members after January meeting, I do have some pieces of Johnny’s report although I did not receive details in writing until last night.

 

Attached please see a copy of Johnny’s final report on the Role of the Regions that I received from DSI Home Office last night.  Last night Carol told me that the Board voted to eliminate Regionally-Elected Vice Presidents at its meeting last month.   However, the Board did not address the subject of DSI and its relationship with the Regions. The minutes of the January Board meeting will be approved in April DSI Board of Directors meeting in Atlanta.     

 

In my personal view, there will be some degree of impact on the linkage between DSI and SWDSI. I thought that I need to gather your feedbacks prior to SWDSI meeting in Houston. Please let me know your thoughts and inputs on this important matter.

 

See you all in Houston next month when I will provide additional information at the SWDSI Officers Meeting!

 

Binshan

 

Binshan Lin, Ph.D.

BellSouth Corporation Professor

Louisiana State University in Shreveport

DSI Regionally-Elected Vice President (2007-2009)

Coordinator of Professional & Faculty Development Program, DSI 2008

318-797-5025 (W)