Uploaded May 20, 2002 to https://ewh.ieee.org/r2/capitalarea/UnitedWeStand/
In the following statement written by Mike Cardinale, Chair NOVA, Jim Allen, Vice Chair NCAC, has inserted comments which are presented in boldface
On April 10, 2002, the IEEE Northern Virginia Section (NOVA) Executive Committee (EXCOM) voted
to withdraw from the National Capital Area Council (NCAC), which comprises two member sections, NOVA and the Washington
Section (WASH). (Since only two sections form the NCAC, the NOVA withdrawal will effectively dissolve the Council.)
This was the first step in accordance with the IEEE Regional Activities Board (RAB) Operations Manual. See Section 9.3.L for a description of the process Sections must follow to withdraw
from a Council.
Section 9.3 also describes the roles and responsibilities of a Council, and it states that a Council exists to meet
the needs and desires of the Sections it supports. The NCAC was initially formed and delegated two primary tasks
for the Sections: 1) publish a joint newsletter (the National Capital Area SCANNER), and 2) organize an annual
IEEE National Capital Area Awards Banquet. Additional roles allowed and assumed under the Council Bylaws included:
identify and nominate area members for national awards, assume responsibility for joint professional activities,
and sponsor area conferences.
What about maintaining a local IEEE office/contact/phone number?
The NOVA EXCOM has found that volunteers spend too much time trying to resolve issues with a Council who should
be supporting and following the direction of the Sections. This has slowed the EXCOM's attempts to expand the benefits,
activities, and membership of IEEE in Northern Virginia. Problems include:
- Little coordination occurs with the Section regarding articles published in the SCANNER, and our recommendations to improve the process have gone unanswered. By forming a joint editorial committee with WASH, we will have a greater control over what is published in the Scanner.
What is published in the SCANNER has for years been the responsibility of the SCANNER Editor, without incident. The difficulty has been getting quality material to publish, not selectively publishing material. Secondly, the editorial board/contact page has been modified many times over the past 24 months to conform to the NOVA Section's latest desires. Third, a new review board has been established, which includes both Section Chairs and their appointees prior to publication.
- For the last two years the Sections have successfully organized the annual Awards Banquet using a joint committee instead of the NCAC.
Three years ago when the awards banquet was run by the NCAC, it provided well known speakers, had a large attendance, and was self-supporting (required minimum or no section funding). The last two years had standard speakers, poor attendance, and was a significant drain on Section resources.
- NCAC has made no national award nominations in recent years.
National PACE Awards were given to Bill Kelly, Saj Durrani, Jim Allen, and Don Rickerson.
- The size of the Section belies the need for joint professional activities, and, in any case, there were no NCAC sponsored professional activities last year.
The Council was told not to run Professional Activities last year, that the Sections would do it. The previous year, the Council received $3900 from the Region for Professional Activities.
- Despite more than half a dozen IEEE conferences yearly in the national capital area, NCAC only identified one conference in 2000, none in 2001, and one this year for the Sections to sponsor.
I doubt that Jerry Gibbon would agree with this.
- NCAC has failed to maintain contracts for publishing of the Scanner, and for membership development/job fairs. For several years, it has been late negotiating an administrative support contract for the Sections.
There are two contracts and the outgoing Chair typically completes them in December. The two contracts are one for the office (Jackie Hunter) and the second for SCANNER Editor (Karen Winstedt). However, delays can come from someone wanting additional clarification on a particular item late in the process such that it stretches into January.
- Attempts starting in 1999 to have the NCAC update its by-laws to come in compliance with current governing documents have been ignored until recently.
There was no discussion of NCAC Bylaws until earlier this year. A committee to update the NCAC Bylaws was established more than 2 months ago.
- By ignoring the governing documents of IEEE and insisting on following its 17-year-old by-laws, the NCAC has chosen to act in its own best interest and not support the needs and desires of the Section. Governing documents include IEEE Bylaws, RAB Operations Manual, NOVA and WASH Bylaws, and the MOA between the Sections.
Specifically, what needs and desires of the sections were ignored by the NCAC?
- The NCAC maintains a patronizing attitude, stemming from its original position and mission, toward the Section. It overrides the sections' input to the Scanner, which is supposed to be published on behalf of the Sections, and the NCAC has tried to influence Regional approval of our Section Bylaws.
Please provide examples of when the NCAC overrode the Section's input to the SCANNER.
NOVA EXCOM believes the Northern Virginia Section will function efficiently without the NCAC for the following
reasons:
Response:
Money wasn't mentioned as an issue for withdrawing from the council. In fact when questioned, Nova EXCOM members
excluded money as a factor in deciding to withdraw from the council.