Results of the EC Meeting

As I noted in my last entry, I promised to provide you with an update from the Executive Committee meeting that occurred yesterday. Well, here it is.

The EC discussed at length issues surrounding ACT/IAC nationalization and the recommendations of the task force led by Carleton Jones. A large portion of the federal workforce and federal IT work occurs outside of the DC metro area. Indeed, a group in Denver has operated under the IAC West banner for quite some time. There is also an emerging, and quite active, group in San Diego that wants to be affiliated with IAC. Further, there is significant interest on the part of government to create ACT groups (councils being too strong a word) in these locations. Maintaining our unique brand is important. We concluded that the best way to accomplish this is to more formally bring these activities in Denver and San Diego into the ACT/IAC fold. In that way we can ensure that they adhere to the same bylaws and operating principles and practices that have made ACT/IAC so successful. This decision is heading IAC down the nationalization path.

There is also evidence that there is interest on the part of companies outside of the DC metro area in becoming IAC members. Yet, they can not fully participate in or gain the benefit from IAC activities given their remote location. As such, the EC decided to establish a regional member dues structure for those companies with no presence in the DC metro region. Particularly as IAC roles out its new Web 2.0 capabilities and as IAC groups, and down the road chapters, form outside of the DC metro area, the organization can offer these companies value for their membership – granted reduced value from what we all experience but at a reduced cost.

I believe that these are excellent decisions that help the organization continue on the path of growth and evolution with the changing landscape that we face.

We also discussed the proposed approach for addressing SIG restructuring. On behalf of the strategic initiatives committee, Mary Ellen presented an excellent approach that will ensure we take into consideration member interests, new administration priorities and CXO council alignment. A task force is being created to operate under a charter approved by the EC to address these issues and recommend a new structure. The task force will be instructed to complete their work and present recommendations to the EC by the beginning of September.

The EC also discussed the issue of transparency. Certainly, through this blog, through membership meetings, through the iacinsider twitter account, the EC is working to provide transparency. Through IAC’s standard operating procedures, documented and published on the web site, a fundamental principle of IAC, in addition to collaboration, is one of transparency. However, these activities which promote transparency have evolved. We find that we do not have a clear policy and guidelines regarding transparency. Particularly in light of the new administration’s policy and focus on transparency, collaboration and accountability, the EC believes it is essential that IAC have a documented policy on transparency as it relates to governance. I have asked John Okay in his role a chair of the governance committee to draft a policy for the EC to review. That activity should be accomplished within the next month and, once approved by the EC, will be published for our membership.

I think this blog entry is long enough at this point and I do have a day job to get back to. Therefore, the rest will have to wait. I promise to report more later. As always, I encourage and welcome your feedback. At least let me know that you are reading this!

Leslie