After paying attention to the issues surrounding Proposal A the last five months and commenting them on LinkedIn and my Facebook page, I’m sure you want my opinion of this.  I’ve been reading both the pros and cons of the issue, hearing from those who have criticize the proposal as well as those from Toastmasters International, in particular a couple of board members who have chimed in on LinkedIn.  In addition to reading what Toastmasters International has put out in support of Proposal A, as well as the LinkedIn discussion, I also urge you to read a couple of letters by past International Directors Jenny Pagano and Jim Smith expressing concerns about this proposal.

I admit that part of what got me interested in this discussion is that the tactics Toastmasters International and its board used in promoting Proposal A reminded me of a set of tactics a past District 30 Governor and Lt. Governor of Education and Training have imposed on other District 30 officers in which there was no transparency, no input from the rank-and-file, and a possibility of a large schism between the leaders and the members.  I was going to write an entry about this as a reason to oppose Proposal A, but now I think I’m better off directly addressing the issues I have with this:

  1. Best and worst case scenarios – While TI has mentioned what is great about implementing the proposed changes and claimed they used their own figures to justify them, there is always a possibility that things may not go well as planned.  As a software engineer, whenever I have to add new code or fix bugs, I have to look at not just the ideal or expected way to input and interface with the code but also look at how the code handles an error or an improper input so the program would not crash or cause problems.  TI has done very little in addressing what could go wrong with what they are proposing and whether the potential problems can keep the proposed system better than the current system.
  2. Consolidating all District Top 3 training – In the past at least those who belong to a Region could attend a different Regional Conference if they are unable to attend their own Regional Conference for their training.  Now that it is all in one week in August, what would happen if a Top 3 officer is unable to attend?  I remember in 2006, the District 30 LGET couldn’t attend the International Convention in DC due to work demands, so it could happen very easily.
  3. Costs – TI has not unveiled the costs of keeping the current Regional and International conventions vs. the new plan of consolidating speech contests and training to International – especially with paying all or some of the costs the speech contestants and the Top 3 District officers.  What if transportation costs, especially gasoline, skyrocket?  What if we have another 9/11 in which airline service can be suspended during the conventions?  Can the convention site adequately house all the 70+ contestants and the 200+ Top 3 officers along with thousands of other attendees, and are there neighboring hotels that can be used?
  4. Interational Leadership Committee (ILC) candidate survey – This year, many considered the candidate survey to be a complete joke – one 3rd VP candidate, John Lau, received more than 70% of the survey vote and was not nominated for that position, while the 4th and 6th vote getter were.  Will the ILC take the candidate surveys seriously, or the scenario that apparently took place this year could happen again?
  5. ILC candidate search – What if the ILC cannot find candidates?  Is it possible they can resort to “bullying” tactics if they were desperate to find someone?  That could be embarrassing to TI as the ILC was formed to find candidates to fill the officer roles, especially International Director.
  6. ILC recommendations – Can the ILC set up recommendations or have any authority to make it easier for candidates to run?  What appears not to be addressed by TI is why there are so few candidates for each of the International Director spots and try to remove barriers that may prevent a potential candidate from running for office.
  7. Region Advisor Marketing (RA) – If the RA conflicts with districts or the Board, what steps can be taken to resolve them?  TI can’t just assume that the RA can easily work with each of the Districts in a Region as each District and its leadership can be different.  Even neighboring districts can be radically different.
  8. RA selection – Can the Districts in a Region have input on who should be selected as their RA?  It does not say in their FAQ.  Plus for the RAs to work well with their Districts, they should visit them at their conferences and other events prior to their selection, which can cost them plenty of money with no assurance that they will be selected.

I am not convinced that Proposal A can address the problems regarding costs of running their events, recruiting candidates for International office and serving the needs of the Districts as well as the members.  The way the Board of Directors unveiled this proposal is abysmal – they never publicize any sessions or any way for members to give input on how to fix what’s wrong, then when they unveiled this proposal they should have given more details as to why they came up with their decision.  They should have unveiled comparison of costs between the current system and the proposed changes as well as how the ILC is better at recruiting candidates than the current process, in an ideal situation and especially in some worst-case scenarios.  They also should have explained alternatives that they considered and why they were not used.  TI has done a poor job in addressing the complaints regarding Proposal A and have not given adequate examples of why this proposal can address these concerns.

With that I recommend a NO vote.